Docstoc

Nevada

Document Sample
Nevada Powered By Docstoc
					2009
State Teacher
Policy Yearbook
Nevada
                                              R   ALL GRA
                                           VE             D



                                           d-
                                       O




                                                          E




 National Council on Teacher Quality
Acknowledgments
STATeS
State education agencies remain our most important partners in this effort, and their extensive experience has helped
to ensure the factual accuracy of the final product. Every state formally received a draft of the Yearbook in July 2009 for
comment and correction; states also received a final draft of their reports a month prior to release. All states graciously
reviewed and responded to our drafts. While states do not always agree with our recommendations, the willingness of
most states to acknowledge the imperfections of their teacher policies is an important first step toward reform.

We also thank the many state pension boards that reviewed our drafts and responded to our inquiries.

FuNderS
The primary funders for the 2009 Yearbook were:

n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation                n George Gund Foundation
n Daniels Fund                                     n Houston Endowment
n Fisher Family Foundation                         n The Joyce Foundation

n Gleason Family Foundation



The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct funding from the federal government.

STAFF
Sandi Jacobs, Project Director
Sarah Brody, Project Assistant
Kelli M. Rosen, Lead Researcher
Trisha M. Madden, Stephanie T. Maltz and Tracey L. Myers-Preston, Researchers

Thank you to Bryan Gunning and the team at CPS Inc. for their design of the 2009 Yearbook. Thanks also to Colleen
Hale at Summerhouse Studios for the original Yearbook design and to Jeff Hale for technical support.
executive Summary
Welcome to the Nevada edition of the National Council on Teacher Quality’s 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook.
This analysis is our third annual look at state policies impacting the teaching profession. We hope that this report
will help focus attention on areas where state policymakers can make changes that will have a positive impact on
teacher quality and student achievement.
The 2009 Yearbook presents a comprehensive analysis of state teacher policies. Our evaluation is organized in five
areas encompassing 33 goals. Broadly, these goals examine the impact of state policy on 1) delivering well-prepared
teachers, 2) expanding the teaching pool, 3) identifying effective teachers, 4) retaining those deemed effective and
5) exiting those deemed ineffective.


Nevada at a Glance
Overall 2009 Yearbook Grade: d-
area gradeS:                                                  goal BreakdoWn:
 area 1 Delivering Well Prepared Teachers        D-                 Fully meets                              4
 area 2 Expanding the Teaching Pool              D-                 nearly meets                             0
 area 3 Identifying Effective Teachers           D-                 Partially meets                          5
 area 4 Retaining Effective Teachers             D                  only meets a small part                  5
 area 5 Exiting Ineffective Teachers             D+                 Does not meet                           19

Major Policy StrengthS:
• Requires annual evaluations for all teachers
• Supports differential pay in high-needs schools and shortage subjects
• Requires that all new teachers pass a pedagogy test

Major Policy WeakneSSeS:
• Awards tenure virtually automatically
• Fails to make evidence of student learning the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations
• Lacks an efficient termination process for ineffective teachers
• Offers a disingenuous alternate route
• Allows middle school teachers to teach on a K-8 generalist license




                                                                                  nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 1
                                                                                                                  Nevada
         How is Nevada Faring?

         area 1: d-
         Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
         Nevada’s policies supporting the delivery of well-prepared teachers are sorely lacking. The state does not require
         teacher candidates to pass a basic skills test prior to program admission. In addition, Nevada does not ensure that
         elementary teachers are provided with a broad liberal arts education. Elementary teacher preparation programs
         are not required to address the science of reading or provide mathematics content specifically geared to the needs
         of elementary teachers. The state does not require elementary candidates to pass a test of the science of reading
         or a rigorous mathematics assessment. Nevada also does not sufficiently prepare middle school teachers to teach
         appropriate grade-level content, and it allows middle school teachers to teach on a generalist K-8 license. The
         state also does not ensure that special education teachers are adequately prepared to teach content-area subject
         matter. Commendably, Nevada requires all new teachers to pass a pedagogy test to attain licensure, and the state’s
         efforts to hold preparation programs accountable for the quality of teachers they produce are on the right track.
         Unfortunately, the state has not retained full authority over its program approval, and it lacks any policy that ensures
         efficient preparation of teacher candidates in terms of the professional coursework that may be required.

         area 2: d-
         Expanding the Pool of Teachers
         Nevada does not currently provide a genuine alternate route into the teaching profession. The state’s alternate
         routes are not sufficiently selective and coursework does not adequately address the needs of new teachers. In
         addition, Nevada limits the usage and providers of its alternate routes and does not collect objective data to hold
         alternate route programs accountable for the performance of the teachers they prepare. Finally, Nevada’s policies
         targeting licensure reciprocity create unnecessary obstacles for out-of-state teachers.

         area 3: d-
         Identifying Effective Teachers
         Nevada’s efforts to identify effective teachers are in need of improvement. The state only has two of the three
         necessary elements for the development of a student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system. Although it
         requires classroom observations as part of teacher evaluations, it fails to require evidence of student learning through
         objective measures such as standardized test scores and prohibits the use of student achievement data from the
         state data system. Commendably, Nevada requires multiple evaluations for its new teachers, including one early in
         the year, and the state requires annual evaluations for its nonprobationary teachers. The probationary period for new
         teachers in Nevada is only two years, and the state does not require any meaningful process to evaluate cumulative
         effectiveness in the classroom before teachers are awarded tenure. Further, the state’s licensure requirements are not
         based on evidence of teacher effectiveness, and it reports little school-level data that can help support the equitable
         distribution of teacher talent.




2 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
    Nevada
area 4: d
Retaining Effective Teachers
Nevada does not require mentoring or any other induction support for new teachers. Nevada gives districts authority
for how teachers are paid, and the state supports differential pay for teachers working in high-needs schools and
shortage subject areas; however, the state’s other policies regarding teacher compensation need improvement.
Nevada does not support retention bonuses, compensation for relevant prior work experience or performance pay. In
addition, the state’s pension system is not currently financially sustainable. Nevada only provides a defined benefit
pension plan for teachers, and its pension policies are not portable, flexible or fair to all workers. Further, retirement
benefits are determined by a formula that is not neutral, meaning that pension wealth does not accumulate uniformly
for each year a teacher works.

area 5: d+
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Beginning in 2010, Nevada will commendably require that all teachers of core subject areas pass subject-matter
tests before entering the classroom. However, the state fails to articulate a policy regarding teachers who receive
unsatisfactory evaluations. Regrettably, Nevada allows tenured teachers who are terminated for poor performance to
appeal multiple times, and it fails to distinguish due process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective performance
from those facing license revocation for dereliction of duty or felony and/or morality violations.




                                                                                    nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 3
                                                                                                                    Nevada
about the 2009 Yearbook
the 2009 edition of the State Teacher Policy Yearbook is the national council on teacher quality’s
third annual review of state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession. this
year’s report is a comprehensive analysis of the full range of each state’s teacher policies, measured
against a realistic blueprint for reform.
The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary
grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. In many respects,
the Yearbook provides a road map to the Race to the Top, addressing key policy areas such as teacher preparation, evaluation,
alternative certification and compensation. Our analysis makes clear that states have a great deal of work to do in order to ensure
that every child has an effective teacher.
The 2009 Yearbook revisits most of the goals from our first two editions, with a few new goals added for good measure. With
ongoing feedback from state officials, practitioners, policy groups and other education organizations, as well as NCTQ’s own
nationally respected advisory group, we have continued to refine and develop our policy goals. Consequently, many of the goals
and related indicators have changed from previous reviews. We therefore have not published comparisons with prior ratings, but
look forward to tracking state progress in future editions.

Our goals meet NCTQ’s five criteria for an effective reform framework:
1. They are supported by a strong rationale, grounded in the best research available.
   (A full list of the citations supporting each goal can be found at www.nctq.org/stpy.)
2. They offer practical, rather than pie-in-the-sky, solutions for improving teacher quality.
3. They take on the teaching profession’s most pressing needs, including making the profession more responsive to
   the current labor market.
4. They are for the most part relatively cost neutral.
5. They respect the legitimate constraints that some states face so that the goals can work in all 50 states.

As is now our practice, in addition to a national summary report, we have customized the Yearbook so that each state has its own
report, with its own analyses and data. Users can download any of our 51 state reports (including the District of Columbia) from
our website at www.nctq.org/stpy. Since some national perspective is always helpful, each state report contains charts and graphs
showing how the state performed compared to all other states. We also point to states that offer a “Best Practice” for other states
to emulate.
In addition to giving an overall grade, we also give “sub-grades” in each of the five areas organizing the goals. These grades break
down even further, with an eye toward giving a full perspective on the states’ progress. We rate state progress on the individual
goals using a familiar and useful graphic :                   .
We hope the Yearbook continues to serve as an important resource for state school chiefs, school boards, legislatures and the many
advocates who press hard for reform. In turn, we maintain our commitment to listen and learn.


Sincerely,




Kate Walsh, President
Goals
area 1: delivering Well PrePared teacherS                                                                                     page
 1-A: Admission into Preparation Programs                                                                                      7
   The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to administer a basic skills test as a criterion for
   admission.
 1-B: Elementary Teacher Preparation                                                                                          10
   The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide elementary teachers with a broad liberal arts
   education.
 1-C: Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction                                                                              16
   The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science of reading instruction.
 1-D: Teacher Preparation in Mathematics                                                                                      20
   The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sufficient knowledge of mathematics content.
 1-E: Middle School Teacher Preparation                                                                                       23
   The state should ensure that middle school teachers are sufficiently prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.
 1-F: Special Education Teacher Preparation                                                                                   27
   The state should ensure that special education teachers are prepared to teach content-area subject matter.
 1-G: Assessing Professional Knowledge                                                                                        31
   The state should use a licensing test to verify that all new teachers meet its professional standards.
 1-H: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability                                                                              34
   The state’s approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the
   teachers they produce.
 1-I: State Authority for Program Approval                                                                                    37
   The state should retain full authority over its process for approving teacher preparation programs.
 1-J: Balancing Professional Coursework                                                                                       40
   The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide an efficient and balanced program of study.

area 2: exPanding the Pool of teacherS
 2-A: Alternate Route Eligibility                                                                                             45
   The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission requirements of traditional preparation
   programs while also being flexible to the needs of nontraditional candidates.
 2-B: Alternate Route Preparation                                                                                             49
   The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation that is relevant to the
   immediate needs of new teachers.
 2-C: Alternate Route Usage and Providers                                                                                     53
   The state should provide an alternate route that is free from regulatory obstacles that inappropriately limit its usage
   and providers.
 2-D: Alternate Route Program Accountability                                                                                  59
   The state should ensure that its approval process for alternate route programs holds them accountable for the perfor-
   mance of their teachers.
 2-E: Licensure Reciprocity                                                                                                   62
   The state should help to make teacher licenses fully portable among states, with appropriate safeguards.




                                                                                       nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 5
                                                                                                                       Nevada
  Goals
  area 3: identifying effective teacherS                                                                                               page
    3-A: State Data Systems                                                                                                            67
       The state should develop a data system that contributes some of the evidence needed to assess teacher effectiveness.
    3-B: Evaluation of Effectiveness                                                                                                   70
       The state should require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation.
    3-C: Frequency of Evaluations                                                                                                      74
       The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers and multiple evaluations of all new teachers.
    3-D: Tenure                                                                                                                        78
       The state should require that tenure decisions be meaningful.
    3-E: Licensure Advancement                                                                                                         81
       The state should ensure that licensure advancement is based on evidence of effectiveness.
    3-F: Equitable Distribution                                                                                                        85
       The state should contribute to the equitable distribution of teacher talent among schools in its districts by means of
       good reporting.

  area 4: retaining effective teacherS
    4-A: Induction                                                                                                                     89
       The state should require effective induction for all new teachers, with special emphasis on teachers in high-needs schools.
    4-B: Pay Scales                                                                                                                    92
       The state should give local districts full authority for pay scales, eliminating potential barriers such as state salary
       schedules and other regulations that control how districts pay teachers.
    4-C: Retention Pay                                                                                                                 96
       The state should support retention pay, such as significant boosts in salary after tenure is awarded, for effective teachers.
    4-D: Compensation for Prior Work Experience                                                                                        98
       The state should encourage districts to provide compensation for related prior subject-area work experience.
    4-E: Differential Pay                                                                                                              101
       The state should support differential pay for effective teaching in shortage and high-needs areas.
    4-F: Performance Pay                                                                                                               104
       The state should support performance pay, but in a manner that recognizes its infancy, appropriate uses and limitations.
    4-G: Pension Sustainability                                                                                                        107
       The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to funding teachers’ pension systems.
    4-H: Pension Flexibility                                                                                                           114
       The state should ensure that pension systems are portable, flexible and fair to all teachers.
    4-I: Pension Neutrality                                                                                                            122
       The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniformly increasing pension wealth with each additional
       year of work.

  area 5: exiting ineffective teacherS
    5-A: Licensure Loopholes                                                                                                           125
       The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure requirements to continue teaching.
    5-B: Unsatisfactory Evaluations                                                                                                    128
       The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory evaluations, including specifying that
       teachers with multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible for dismissal.
    5-C: Dismissal for Poor Performance                                                                                                131
       The state should ensure that the process for terminating ineffective teachers is expedient and fair to all parties.

  aPPendix                                                                                                                             135


6 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
    Nevada
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal a – admission into Preparation Programs
The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to
administer a basic skills test as a criterion for admission.

goal components
                                                       Figure 1
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                       How States are Faring in Admission Requirements

1. The state should require teacher candidates               0    best Practice States
   to pass a basic skills test that assesses read-
   ing, writing and mathematics as a criterion for           7    States Meet Goal
                                                                  Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi,
   admission to teacher preparation programs. All
                                                                  North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
   preparation programs in a state should use a
                                                                  West Virginia
   common test to facilitate program comparison.
   The state, not teacher preparation programs,              7    States nearly Meet Goal
   should set the score needed to pass this test.                 Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas,
   Programs should have the option of exempting                   Washington, Wisconsin
   from this test candidates who submit compa-
   rable SAT/ACT scores at a level set by the state.         1    State Partly Meets Goal
                                                                  Iowa

rationale                                                    5    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                  California, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                          Virginia
n   The most appropriate time for assessing basic
    skills is at program entry.                              31   States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado
n   Screening candidates at program entry protects                Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,
    the public’s investment.                                      Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
SuPPorting reSearch                                               Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
    Research citations to support this goal are                   Minnesota, Montana, nevada,
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.                     New Hampshire, New Jersey,
                                                                  New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
                                                                  Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
                                                                  South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming




                                                                                nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 7
                                                                                                                Nevada
         area 1: Goal a Nevada analysis

             State Does not Meet Goal


         analySiS                                                    recoMMendation
         Nevada does not require aspiring teachers to pass a         Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should con-
         basic skills test as a criterion for admission to teacher   sider requiring that its approved teacher preparation
         education programs, instead delaying the require-           programs only accept applicants who have first passed
         ment until teacher candidates are ready to apply for        a basic skills test or demonstrated equivalent perfor-
         licensure.                                                  mance on a college entrance exam. Furthermore, the
                                                                     test, the minimum passing score and the equivalent
         SuPPorting reSearch                                         college entrance exam score should be determined by
         Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 391.036                    the state.



                                                                     nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                                     Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




8 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
    Nevada
                                                                              Figure 3




                                                                                                                                                                                   d
                                                                                                                                               tion




                                                                                                                                                                               uire
                                                                              When do states test




                                                                                                                                       ram mple




                                                                                                                                                                          t req
                                                                                                                ram n to
                                                                              teacher candidates’




                                                                                                                                   prog r co




                                                                                                                                                                     st no
                                                                                                            prog issio
        examples of Best Practice




                                                                                                                               rep afte
                                                                              basic skills?




                                                                                                                                                               lls te
                                                                                                       prepore adm




                                                                                                                           of pring or




                                                                                                                                                          c ski
A number of states--connecticut, louisiana,




                                                                                                        bef




                                                                                                                                                      basi
                                                                                                                            Du
Mississippi, north carolina, South carolina, tennes-
                                                                                alabama
see and West virginia--require candidates to pass a                             alaska
basic skills test as a condition of admission to a teacher                      arizona
preparation program. These states set a minimum pass-                           arkansas
ing score for the test and also eliminate unnecessary                           california1
testing by allowing candidates to opt out of the basic                          colorado
skills test by demonstrating a sufficiently high score on                       connecticut
the SAT or ACT.                                                                 Delaware
                                                                                District of columbia
                                                                                Florida2
                                                                                Georgia
Figure 2                                                                        hawaii
When do states test teacher candidates’                                         idaho
basic skills?                                                                   illinois
                                                                                indiana
                                                                                iowa
basic skills test
                                                                                kansas
 not required                                     before admission
                                                  to prep program               kentucky
                                                                                louisiana
                                                                                Maine
                                                                                Maryland
                            5                                                   Massachusetts
                                                                                Michigan
                                              15                                Minnesota
                                                                                Mississippi
                                                                                Missouri
                                                                                Montana
                                                                                nebraska
                                  31                                            Nevada
                                                                                new hampshire
                                                                                new Jersey
                                                                                new Mexico
                                                                                new york
  Nevada                                                                        north carolina
                                  During or after
                                                                                north Dakota
                                completion of prep
                                                                                ohio
                                    program
                                                                                oklahoma
                                                                                oregon
                                                                                Pennsylvania
                                                                                rhode island
                                                                                South carolina
                                                                                South Dakota
                                                                                tennessee
                                                                                texas
                                                                                Utah
                                                                                Vermont
                                                                                Virginia3
                                                                                Washington
   Figure 3
    1 California requires teacher candidates to take, but not pass, a basic
                                                                                West Virginia
      skills test prior to admission.                                           Wisconsin
    2 Programs in Florida may accept up to 10 percent of an entering class      Wyoming
      who have not passed a basic skills test.
    3 Programs in Virginia may accept candidates who have not met the                                   15                 31                         5
      required passing score.
                                               area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
                                                 Goal b – elementary teacher Preparation
                           The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide
                                        elementary teachers with a broad liberal arts education.

                                                                     goal components
             Figure 4
                                                                     (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in the Preparation of             states’ rating for the goal.)
             Elementary Teachers
                                                                     1. The state should require that its approved
                   0     best Practice States                           teacher preparation programs deliver a compre-
                                                                        hensive program of study in broad liberal arts
                   0     States Meet Goal
                                                                        coursework. An adequate curriculum is likely
                   7     States nearly Meet Goal                        to require approximately 36 credit hours to
                         California, Massachusetts, Michigan,           ensure appropriate depth in the core subject
                         New Hampshire, Oregon, Texas,                  areas of English, science, social studies and fine
                         Washington                                     arts. (Mathematics preparation for elementary
                                                                        teachers is discussed in Goal 1-D.) An appropri-
                   12    States Partly Meet Goal                        ate elementary teacher preparation program
                         Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,           should be something like:
                         Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
                         New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia        n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
                                                                           a survey of American literature;
                   17    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                        n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify)
                         Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana,
                                                                           of the technical aspects of good writing and
                         Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
                         Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina,             grammar;
                                                                        n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
                         North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah,
                         Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin                 a survey of children’s literature;
                                                                        n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify) of

                   15    States Do not Meet Goal                           general science, covering basic topics in earth
                         Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia,           science, biology, physics, and chemistry;
                         Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,      n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify)

                         Montana, nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island,              of a survey of U.S. history and/or U.S.
                         South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming             government;
                                                                        n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify) of

                                                                           a survey of world history, including ancient
                                                                           history;
                                                                        n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify)

                                                                           of world cultures and religion, including
                                                                           geography;
                                                                        n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of

                                                                           a survey of music appreciation; and
                                                                        n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of

                                                                           a survey of art history.




10 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
goal components cont.                                 rationale
2. The state should require elementary teacher            See appendix for detailed rationale.
   candidates to complete a content specializa-
   tion in an academic subject area. In addition to   n   Elementary teachers need liberal arts
   enhancing content knowledge, this requirement          coursework that is relevant to the PK through
   also ensures that prospective teachers have            6 classroom.
   taken higher level academic coursework.            n   An academic concentration enhances content
                                                          knowledge and ensures that prospective
3. Arts and sciences faculty, rather than education       elementary teachers take higher level
   faculty, should teach liberal arts coursework to       academic coursework.
   teacher candidates.
                                                      n   Standards-based programs can work when
                                                          verified by testing.
4. The state should allow elementary teacher
   candidates to test out of specific coursework      n   Mere alignment with student learning
   requirements, provided the test that is limited        standards is not sufficient.
   to a single particular subject area.               n   Subject-area coursework should be taught by
                                                          arts and sciences faculty.
                                                      n   Teacher candidates need to be able to “test
                                                          out” of coursework requirements.
                                                      SuPPorting reSearch
                                                          Research citations to support this goal are
                                                          available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




                                                                        nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 11
                                                                                                        Nevada
          area 1: Goal b Nevada analysis

               State Does not Meet Goal


          analySiS                                                     recoMMendation
          Nevada does not articulate the subject-matter knowl-         Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should ensure
          edge that elementary teacher candidates must have            that prospective elementary teachers have appropri-
          across all areas.                                            ate and sufficient subject-matter preparation in one of
          The state does not specify any coursework require-           two ways. First, Nevada could establish comprehensive
          ments for general education or elementary teacher            coursework requirements that are specifically geared to
          candidates, except for ones related to content method-       the areas of knowledge needed by elementary teachers.
          ology. Nevada requires eight semester hours in student       Allowing teacher candidates to pick and choose course-
          teaching, nine semester hours in methods of teaching         work under ambiguous requirements (e.g., “English” or
          elementary subjects, nine semester hours in the teaching     “history”) may lead to far too many gaps in essential
          of literacy or language arts, and six semester hours of      knowledge. Arts and sciences faculty should teach this
          professional education coursework in areas such as class-    coursework, and teacher candidates should be allowed to
          room management and child development.                       test out of core coursework requirements so that quali-
          Nevada also has not articulated standards for programs       fied candidates may pursue other course selections and
          to apply in preparing elementary candidates.                 are not forced to retake survey courses they may have
          Finally, all new elementary teachers in Nevada must          already had in high school. Alternatively, Nevada could
          pass a general subject-matter test, the Praxis II. While     articulate a specific set of standards and then administer
          this test puts the state in technical compliance with        a licensing test based on it.
          NCLB’s requirements that all elementary teachers take
          a test of broad subject matter, it does not report teacher
          performance in each subject area, meaning that it is pos-    nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          sible to pass the test and still fail some subject areas,    Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
          especially given low state cut score.

          SuPPorting reSearch
          Nevada Administrative Code 391.095
          www.ets.org/praxis




12 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
       examples of Best Practice

Although no state meets this goal, two have articu-
lated noteworthy policies. Massachusetts’s testing
requirements, which are based on the state’s curricu-
lum, ensure that elementary teachers are provided with
a broad liberal arts education. texas articulates detailed
standards in which preparation programs must frame
instruction for elementary teachers. Both states also
require that arts and sciences faculty teach liberal arts
courses to teacher candidates. Neither state requires
separate passing scores for each subject area on general
curriculum tests, but both utilize licensing assessments
based on their own standards.




  Figure 5
  What subjects does Nevada expect elementary teachers to know?                                        State requirements mention subject
                                                                                                       State requirements cover subject in depth
  English
    american      World/british Writing/Grammar     children’s                                     X   State does not require subject
    literature     literature     composition       literature



       X              X               X                X
  sciEncE
    chemistry       Physics     General Physical       earth       biology/life
                                   Science            Science        Science



       X              X               X                X                X
  social studiEs
    american       american       american         World history   World history   World history       Geography
    history i      history ii    Government         (ancient)       (Modern)       (non Western)



      X               X               X                X               X               X                 X
  FinE arts
   art history       Music




       X              X


                                                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 13
                                                                                                                                   Nevada
                                               Figure 6
                                                                                      State requirements mention subject
                                               Do states expect                       State requirements cover subject in depth
                                               elementary teachers
                                               to know core
                                               content?

                                               English

                                               american literature            2
                                               World/british literature       2
                                               Writing/Grammar/
                                               composition                                                    21
                                               children’s literature                    7
                                               sciEncE

                                               chemistry                      2
                                               Physics                    0
                                               General Physical
                                               Science                                                                                 36
                                               earth Science                                                                       34
                                               biology/life Science
                                                                                                                                       36
                                               social studiEs

                                               american history i                                      17
                                               american history ii                                  15
                                               american Government                                           21
                                               World history (ancient)                      13
                                               World history (Modern)                       10
                                               World history
                                               (non Western)                      3
                                               Geography                                                                           36
                                               FinE arts

                                               art history                    1
                                               Music                                                                              32


14 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
Figure 7
Do states expect elementary teachers to
complete an academic concentration?
                                      Nevada

                                                      37


           12

                                  2
        academic            Minor or                   not
          major           concentration              required
        required1           required2

1 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa3, Massachusetts, Michigan4,
  New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.
2 Mississippi, New Hampshire. Mississippi requires two content
  concentrations.
3 Although Iowa requires a subject-area major, it consists mostly of
  education courses.
4 Michigan also allows a group major with a minor,
  or three minors.




                                                                        nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 15
                                                                                                        Nevada
                                               area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
                             Goal c – teacher Preparation in reading instruction
                    The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science of
                                                                         reading instruction.

                                                                        goal components
             Figure 8
                                                                        (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in Preparing Teachers to             states’ rating for the goal.)
             Teach Reading
                                                                        1. To ensure that teacher preparation programs
                   3     best Practice States                              adequately prepare candidates in the science
                         Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia
                                                                           of reading, the state should require that these
                                                                           programs train teachers in the five instructional
                   2     States Meet Goal
                         Oklahoma, Tennessee                               components shown by scientifically based read-
                                                                           ing research to be essential to teaching children
                   6     States nearly Meet Goal                           to read.
                         California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Oregon,
                         Texas                                          2. The most flexible and effective way of achieving
                                                                           this crucial goal is by requiring that new teach-
                   14    States Partly Meet Goal                           ers pass a rigorous test of reading instruction in
                         Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana,           order to attain licensure. Most current tests of
                         Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,       pedagogy and reading instruction allow teachers
                         Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont,            to pass without knowing the science of reading
                         Washington, West Virginia
                                                                           instruction. If a state elects to test knowledge of
                                                                           reading instruction on a general test of pedago-
                   2     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                         Arizona, New York                                 gy or elementary content, it should require that
                                                                           the testing company report a subscore clearly
                   24    States Do not Meet Goal                           revealing the candidates’ knowledge in the sci-
                         Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia,           ence of reading. Elementary teachers who do
                         Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,          not possess the minimum knowledge needed
                         Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska,               should not be eligible for a teaching license.
                         nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
                         New Mexico, North Carolina,
                         North Dakota, Rhode Island,                    rationale
                         South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,                See appendix for detailed rationale.
                         Wisconsin, Wyoming
                                                                        n   Reading science has identified five
                                                                            components of effective instruction.
                                                                        n   Most current reading tests do not offer
                                                                            assurance that teachers know the science of
                                                                            reading.
                                                                        SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                            Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                            available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




16 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 1: Goal c Nevada analysis

     State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                       recoMMendation
Nevada does not require that teacher preparation pro-          Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should ensure
grams for elementary teacher candidates address the            that teacher preparation programs adequately prepare
science of reading. The state has neither coursework           elementary teacher candidates in the science of reading
requirements nor standards related to this critical area.      by requiring that these programs train candidates in the
Nevada does require that elementary teacher candidates         five instructional components of scientifically based
complete nine credit hours in the teaching of literacy or      reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, flu-
language arts; however, this coursework does not explicitly    ency, vocabulary and comprehension. Nevada should
require that teachers receive training in the five essential   also utilize a rigorous assessment tool to ensure that
components of reading instruction.                             its teacher candidates are adequately prepared before
Nevada also does not require teacher candidates to pass        entering the classroom. The state’s assessment should
an assessment that measures knowledge of scientifically        clearly test knowledge and skills related to the science
based reading instruction prior to certification or at any     of reading, similar to the assessment adopted by Mas-
point thereafter.                                              sachusetts, and if it is combined with an assessment
                                                               that also tests general pedagogy or elementary content,
SuPPorting reSearch                                            it should report a subscore for the science of reading
Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 391.095                       specifically. Elementary teachers who do not possess
                                                               the minimum knowledge in this area should not be eli-
                                                               gible for licensure.



                                                               nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                               Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




                                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 17
                                                                                                                   Nevada
Figure 9
                                    PrEParation                                                 tEsting
Do states ensure                   rEquirEmEnts                                              rEquirEmEnts
elementary teachers




                                                    cien ss




                                                                                            test
                                                                  ing s dress




                                                                                                                st



                                                                                                                                 est
                                               ing s ddre
                                     ce



                                                        ce



                                                                           ce
know the science of




                                                                                                           te te
                            ing s ss
                                 cien




                                                                       cien




                                                                                                                             ng t
                                                                                       iate
                       readly addre




                                                              readnot ad
                                          readtially a
reading?




                                                                                                       equa



                                                                                                                         eadi
                                                                                   ropr




                                                                                                                     no r
                                                                                                   inad
                                           Par




                                                                                app
                        Ful




                                                               Do
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
                        25                  1                  25                5                 10                36
Figure 10
                                                     examples of Best Practice
Do states require preparation for elementary
teachers in the science of reading?            connecticut, Massachusetts and virginia presently
                                               require preparation programs for elementary teacher
                    Nevada                     candidates to address the science of reading. All three
                                               states also require candidates to pass comprehensive
            25                                 assessments that specifically test the five elements of
                                25             instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vo-
                                               cabulary and comprehension.




                       1
            yes     Partially   no



Figure 11
Do states measure new teachers’ knowledge
of the science of reading?

                    Nevada

                                36



                      10
             5

            yes    inadequate   no
                      test




                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 19
                                                                                                   Nevada
                                               area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
                                         Goal D – teacher Preparation in Mathematics
           The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sufficient knowledge
                                                                 of mathematics content.

                                                                          goal components
             Figure 12
                                                                          (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in Preparing Teachers to               states’ rating for the goal.)
             Teach Math
                                                                          1. The state should require teacher preparation
                   1     best Practice State                                 programs to deliver mathematics content of
                         Massachusetts
                                                                             appropriate breadth and depth to elementary
                                                                             teacher candidates. This content should be spe-
                   0     States Meet Goal
                                                                             cific to the needs of the elementary teacher (i.e.,
                   0     States nearly Meet Goal                             foundations, algebra and geometry, with some
                                                                             statistics).
                   3     States Partly Meet Goal
                         California, Florida, New Mexico                  2. The state should require elementary teacher
                                                                             candidates to pass a rigorous test of mathemat-
                   33    States Meet a Small Part of Goal                    ics content in order to attain licensure. Such test
                         Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
                                                                             can also be used to test out of content require-
                         District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
                                                                             ments. Elementary teachers who do not possess
                         Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
                                                                             the minimum knowledge needed should not be
                         Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
                                                                             eligible for a teaching license.
                         New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
                         Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
                         Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,      rationale
                         Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
                         Washington, Wyoming                                  See appendix for detailed rationale.
                                                                          n   Required math coursework should be tailored
                   14    States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                              in both design and delivery to the unique needs
                         Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
                                                                              of the elementary teacher.
                         Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska,
                         nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,        n   Most state tests offer no assurance that teach-
                         West Virginia, Wisconsin                             ers are prepared to teach mathematics.
                                                                          SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                              Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                              available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




20 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 1: Goal D Nevada analysis

     State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                        recoMMendation
Nevada has not articulated requirements to ensure that          Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should require
elementary teacher candidates have sufficient mathemat-         teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics
ics content knowledge.                                          content that is specifically geared to the needs of
The state neither specifies any coursework requirements         elementary teachers. This includes coursework in founda-
regarding mathematics content nor outlines teaching             tions, algebra and geometry, with some statistics. Nevada
standards that its approved teacher preparation programs        should also test requisite mathematics content with a
must use to frame instruction in elementary mathematics         rigorous assessment tool, such as the test Massachu-
content.                                                        setts recently adopted. Such test could also be used to
                                                                allow candidates to test out of coursework requirements.
Nevada does require that all new elementary teachers pass
                                                                Teacher candidates who lack minimum mathematics
a general subject-matter test, the Praxis II. This commercial
                                                                knowledge should not be eligible for licensure.
test lacks a specific mathematics subscore, so one can fail
the mathematics portion and still pass the test. Further,
while this test does cover important elementary school-
level content, it barely evaluates candidates’ knowledge        nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
beyond an elementary school level, does not challenge           Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
their understanding of underlying concepts and does not
require candidates to apply knowledge in nonroutine, mul-
tistep procedures.

SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code 391.095
www.ets.org/praxis
“No Common Denominator: The Preparation of
Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America’s
Education Schools,” NCTQ, June 2008
http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/
nctq_ttmath_fullreport.pdf




                                                                                    nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 21
                                                                                                                    Nevada
          Figure 13
                                                                                        examples of Best Practice
          Do states require appropriate mathematics
          preparation for elementary teachers?                                    Massachusetts ensures that its elementary teachers
                                                                                  have sufficient knowledge of mathematics content. As
                                                                                  part of its general curriculum test, the state utilizes a
                                                                                  separately scored mathematics subtest that covers
                                                                                  topics specifically geared to the needs of elementary
                                             36                                   teachers.




                                                                       Nevada



                                                            14
                               1
                              yes1         Partially         no2

           1 Massachusetts
           2 Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
             Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia,
             Wisconsin




          Figure 14
          Do states measure new elementary teachers’
          knowledge of math?


                                             49
                             Nevada




                               1                              1
                              yes1       inadequate          no2
                                            test

           1 Massachusetts
           2 Montana




22 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal e – Middle School teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that middle school teachers are sufficiently prepared to
teach appropriate grade-level content.

goal components
                                                      Figure 15
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                      How States are Faring in Preparing Middle
                                                      School Teachers
1. The state should encourage middle school can-
   didates who intend to teach multiple subjects            1     best Practice State
                                                                  Georgia
   to earn two minors in two core academic areas
   rather than a single major. Middle school can-
                                                            5     States Meet Goal
   didates intending to teach a single subject area               Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana,
   should earn a major in that area.                              Mississippi, New Jersey

2. The state should not permit middle school                12    States nearly Meet Goal
   teachers to teach on a generalist license, which               Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia,
   does not differentiate between the preparation                 Florida, Indiana, Kansas, New York,
   of middle school teachers and that of elemen-                  Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
   tary teachers.                                                 Tennessee, Virginia

3. The state should require that new middle school          14    States Partly Meet Goal
                                                                  Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,
   teachers pass a test in every core academic area
                                                                  Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska,
   they intend to teach.
                                                                  North Carolina, Rhode Island,
                                                                  South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
rationale                                                         West Virginia, Wyoming

    See appendix for detailed rationale.                    9     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n   States must differentiate middle school                       Arizona, Michigan, Montana, nevada,
    teacher preparation from that of elementary                   New Hampshire, New Mexico,
    teachers.                                                     North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah

n   Approved programs should prepare middle                 10    States Do not Meet Goal
    school teacher candidates to be qualified to                  Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho,
    teach two subject areas.                                      Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon,
                                                                  Washington, Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch
    Research citations to support this goal are
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




                                                                                nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 23
                                                                                                                Nevada
          area 1: Goal e Nevada analysis

               State Meets a Small Part of Goal


          analySiS                                                       recoMMendation
          Nevada offers a middle school license for middle school        Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. The state
          teachers; candidates must earn 24 semester hours in a          should not allow middle school teachers to teach on a
          major field of endorsement or area of concentration.           generalist license that does not differentiate between
          Teachers with secondary certificates are allowed to teach      the preparation of middle school teachers and that of
          single subjects in middle school. Those candidates must        elementary teachers. These teachers are less likely to
          complete either a major (36 credit hours) or a minor (24       be adequately prepared in core academic areas because
          credit hours) in their intended teaching field. Regrettably,   they are not required to complete secondary preparation
          Nevada also allows middle school teachers to teach on a        requirements or pass a subject-matter test in each sub-
          generalist K-8 license.                                        ject they teach.
          All new middle school teachers in Nevada are also              The state should also encourage middle school teachers
          required to pass a Praxis II subject-matter test to attain     who plan to teach multiple subjects to earn two minors
          licensure. However, only secondary and middle school           in two core academic areas, rather than a single major.
          candidates are required to pass a single-subject Praxis        However, the state should retain its requirement for a
          II content test to attain licensure. Those seeking the         subject-area major for middle school candidates who
          elementary license are only required to pass the general       intend to teach a single subject.
          content test for elementary education, in which sub-           Finally, Nevada should require subject-matter testing for
          scores are not provided; therefore, there is no assurance      all middle school teacher candidates in every core aca-
          that these middle school teachers will have sufficient         demic area they intend to teach, as a condition of initial
          knowledge in each subject they teach.                          licensure.

          SuPPorting reSearch
          Nevada Administrative Code 391.090, -111, -120
                                                                         nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          www.ets.org/praxis
                                                                         Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




24 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
Figure 16

Do states allow middle
school teachers to teach
                                                                 examples of Best Practice




                                      mst tain
                                               s
on a K-8 generalist




                                           ance
                                 circu er cer
license?                                                georgia ensures that all middle school teachers are suf-




                                  Und
                           yes




                                                   no
                                                        ficiently prepared to teach middle school-level content.
  alabama
                                                        It requires teachers to earn two minors and pass the
  alaska
  arizona
                                                        state’s own single-subject content test. Other notables
  arkansas                                              include louisiana, Mississippi and new jersey. These
  california1                                           states require either two minors or a major for those
  colorado                                              teaching one content area, as well as a passing score on
  connecticut                                           a single-subject content test.
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia
  hawaii
  idaho
  illinois2
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota1
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska1
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma3
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island1
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah3
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin                                             Figure 16
                                                         1 May teach grades 7 and 8 on generalist license if in self-contained
  Wyoming                                                  classroom

                           16     5                30   2 Generalist license is K-9
                                                        3 With the exception of mathematics
                                              Figure 17




                                                                                                                                                                                      t
                                                                                                                                                                                  nten
                                              What academic




                                                                                                                                                                          nor f co
                                                                                                   ors
                                              preparation do states




                                                                                                                                                         ts


                                                                                                                                                                     r mi nt o
                                                                                                                                                      men
                                                                                                                                  ajor
                                                                                                min




                                                                                                                                                                 or o me
                                              require for a middle school




                                                                                    e




                                                                                                                                am



                                                                                                                                                  uire
                                                                                 mor



                                                                                            two




                                                                                                                                                              maj require
                                                                                                                ors




                                                                                                                                             e req
                                                                                                                           than
                                              endorsement or license?




                                                                                                             min
                                                                                   r



                                                                                               r
                                                                               or o



                                                                                           or o




                                                                                                                                         loos
                                                                                                         two



                                                                                                                      less




                                                                                                                                                              no
                                                                            Maj



                                                                                        Maj
                                              alabama
                                              alaska
                                              arizona
                                              arkansas
                                              california
                                              colorado
                                              connecticut
                                              Delaware
                                              District of columbia
                                              Florida
                                              Georgia
                                              hawaii
                                              idaho
                                              illinois
                                              indiana
                                              iowa
                                              kansas
                                              kentucky1
                                              louisiana
                                              Maine
                                              Maryland
                                              Massachusetts1
                                              Michigan
                                              Minnesota
                                              Mississippi
                                              Missouri
                                              Montana
                                              nebraska1
                                              Nevada
                                              new hampshire
                                              new Jersey
                                              new Mexico
                                              new york
                                              north carolina
                                              north Dakota
                                              ohio
                                              oklahoma
                                              oregon
                                              Pennsylvania
                                              rhode island
                                              South carolina
                                              South Dakota
                                              tennessee
                                              texas
                                              Utah
                                              Vermont
                                              Virginia
                                              Washington
                                              West Virginia2
Figure 17                                     Wisconsin
 1 State does not explicitly require two      Wyoming
   minors, but has equivalent requirements.
2 West Virginia elementary candidates need                                  14          2                9             7                 5                     14
  only one minor to teach middle grades.
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal F – Special education teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that special education teachers are prepared to teach
content-area subject matter.

goal components
                                                          Figure 18
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
                                                          How States are Faring in Preparing
                                                          Special Education Teachers
1. The state should require that teacher prepara-
   tion programs provide a broad liberal arts pro-              0     best Practice States
   gram of study to elementary special education
                                                                0     States Meet Goal
   candidates. All elementary special education
   candidates should have preparation in the con-               0     States nearly Meet Goal
   tent areas of math, science, English, social studies
   and fine arts and should be required to pass a               12    States Partly Meet Goal
   subject-matter test for licensure.                                 Arkansas, California, Idaho, Illinois,
                                                                      Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
2. The state should require that teacher preparation                  New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
   programs graduate secondary special education                      Oregon
   teacher candidates who are “highly qualified” in
   at least two subjects. The most efficient route              10    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
   for these candidates to become adequately pre-                     Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey,
   pared to teach multiple subjects may be to earn                    Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia,
   the equivalent of two subject-area minors and                      West Virginia, Wisconsin
   pass tests in those areas.
                                                                29    States Do not Meet Goal
3. The state should customize a “HOUSSE” route                        Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
   for new secondary special education teachers to                    Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
   help them achieve highly qualified status in all                   Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
                                                                      Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
   the subjects they teach.
                                                                      Montana, nevada, New Hampshire,
                                                                      North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
rationale                                                             Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
                                                                      Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming
    See appendix for detailed rationale.
n   All teachers, including special education teach-
    ers, teach content and therefore need relevant
    coursework.
n   HQT requirements place unique challenges on
    secondary special education teachers.
n   Secondary special education teachers need to
    graduate highly qualified in two subject areas.
n   A customized HOUSSE route is needed to meet
    the needs of new special education teachers to
    earn highly qualified status.
SuPPorting reSearch
    Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                                    nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 27
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.                                                                       Nevada
          area 1: Goal F Nevada analysis

               State Does not Meet Goal


          analySiS                                                  recoMMendation
          Nevada’s requirements do not ensure that special          Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should require
          education teachers are prepared to teach content-         that all teacher candidates for elementary special educa-
          area subject matter.                                      tion be well trained in relevant academic subject matter to
          Teacher preparation programs in Nevada are not            ensure that special education students, who deserve the
          required to provide a broad liberal arts program to       opportunity to learn grade-level content, are not short-
          teacher candidates for elementary special education.      changed. These candidates should also be required to pass
          The state does not require these candidates to receive    the same subject-area tests as other elementary teachers.
          any preparation in elementary subject areas or pass       Nevada should also ensure that teacher candidates for
          a subject-matter test.                                    secondary special education are adequately prepared to
          Nevada also does not ensure that teacher candidates       teach multiple subjects. The most efficient way to
          for secondary special education are “highly qualified”    accomplish this is to require these candidates to earn the
          in at least two subject areas. In fact, the state does    equivalent of two subject-area minors and pass tests in
          not even require that these candidates complete a         those areas.
          subject-matter major or pass a subject-matter test.       Finally, the state should create a HOUSSE route spe-
          It additionally does not require dual certification (in   cifically for new secondary special education teachers.
          which special education teachers must attain licen-       Although ideally these teachers will have graduated with
          sure in both special education and a specific subject     highly qualified status in two core areas, the state should
          area), so there is no assurance that secondary special    provide a practical and meaningful way for these teachers
          education teachers have sufficient preparation in any     to achieve highly qualified status in all remaining core sub-
          of the content they may need to teach.
                                                                    jects once they are in the classroom. Nevada should also
          Finally, Nevada does not have a unique HOUSSE route       phase out its use of HOUSSE for veteran teachers.
          for new secondary special education teachers. The
          state has not yet phased out the use of its HOUSSE
          route for veteran teachers and allows its new sec-
          ondary special education teachers to use this route       nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          to gain highly qualified status in multiple subjects.     Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.

          SuPPorting reSearch
          Nevada Administrative Code 391.343
          www.ets.org
          http://www.doe.nv.gov/Accountability_NCLB.htm




28 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
                                                             Figure 19

                                                             Do states require subject-




                                                                                                         ork




                                                                                                                                                          ed
                                                                                                        rk




                                                                                                                                                      quir
                                                                                               ents rsew
                                                                                               ents sewo




                                                                                                                               est
                                                             matter preparation




                                                                                                                                                  n re
                                                                                                                          ter t
                                                                                          irem e cou
       examples of Best Practice




                                                                                          irem cour
                                                             for elementary special




                                                                                                                                             ratio
                                                                                                                       mat
                                                                                      requ equat
                                                                                      requ quate




                                                                                                                                         repa
                                                             education teachers?




                                                                                                                   ect-
Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’s




                                                                                       inad




                                                                                                                                     no p
                                                                                       ade




                                                                                                               Subj
policy in this area. Preparation of special education
                                                               alabama
teachers is a topic in critical need of states’ attention.
                                                               alaska
                                                               arizona
                                                               arkansas
                                                               california
                                                               colorado
                                                               connecticut
                                                               Delaware
                                                               District of columbia
                                                               Florida
                                                               Georgia
                                                               hawaii
                                                               idaho
                                                               illinois
                                                               indiana
                                                               iowa
                                                               kansas
                                                               kentucky
                                                               louisiana
                                                               Maine
                                                               Maryland
                                                               Massachusetts
                                                               Michigan
                                                               Minnesota
                                                               Mississippi
                                                               Missouri
                                                               Montana
                                                               nebraska
                                                               Nevada
                                                               new hampshire
                                                               new Jersey
                                                               new Mexico
                                                               new york
                                                               north carolina
                                                               north Dakota
                                                               ohio
                                                               oklahoma
                                                               oregon
                                                               Pennsylvania
                                                               rhode island
                                                               South carolina
                                                               South Dakota
                                                               tennessee
                                                               texas
                                                               Utah
                                                               Vermont
                                                               Virginia
                                                               Washington
                                                               West Virginia
                                                               Wisconsin
                                                               Wyoming

                                                                                          6      15            14                    26
                                                                                    ed
Figure 20




                                                     d




                                                                                                                    eas
                                            eas lifie




                                                                         area ualifi




                                                                                                               ic ar
                                       ic ar ly qua




                                                                                                       y ac ighly
Do states require subject-




                                                                      mic hly q




                                                                                                           adem
                                                                                                  in an be h
                                   adem high
matter preparation




                                                                  cade hig




                                                                                             ified ed to
                                                             ne a o be
                              o ac o be
for secondary special




                                                                                         qualt requir
                                                         in oquired t
                         in twuired t
education teachers?




                          req




                                                                                          no
                                                          re
  alabama
  alaska
  arizona
  arkansas
  california
  colorado
  connecticut
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia
  hawaii
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming

                             0                            16                              35
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal G – assessing Professional knowledge
The state should use a licensing test to verify that all new teachers meet its
professional standards.

goal components
                                                      Figure 21
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                      How States are Faring in Assessing Professional
                                                      Knowledge
1. The state should assess new teachers’ knowl-
   edge of teaching and learning by means of a              0     best Practice States
   pedagogy test aligned to the state’s profession-
                                                            23    States Meet Goal
   al standards.
                                                                  Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
                                                                  Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,
rationale                                                         Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
                                                                  nevada, New Mexico, New York,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.
                                                                  North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
n   A good pedagogy test puts teeth in states’ pro-               South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
    fessional standards.                                          Texas, West Virginia
SuPPorting reSearch
                                                            2     States nearly Meet Goal
    Research citations to support this goal are                   Maryland, Rhode Island
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                                                            4     States Partly Meet Goal
                                                                  District of Columbia, Idaho,
                                                                  North Carolina, Utah

                                                            5     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                  Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri,
                                                                  Pennsylvania, Wyoming

                                                            17    States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                  Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware,
                                                                  Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan,
                                                                  Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
                                                                  New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia,
                                                                  Washington, Wisconsin




                                                                                nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 31
                                                                                                                Nevada
          area 1: Goal G Nevada analysis

               State Meets Goal


          analySiS                                                  recoMMendation
          Nevada requires all new teachers to pass a popular        Nevada meets this goal. The state should verify that
          pedagogy test from the Praxis series in order to attain   the commercially available tests of pedagogy actually
          licensure.                                                align with state standards, or it may want to consider
                                                                    developing its own test to ensure that new teachers
          SuPPorting reSearch                                       enter classrooms with the requisite knowledge and
          www.ets.org/praxis                                        skills.



                                                                    nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                                    Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




32 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
                                                          Figure 22




                                                                                                                 hers


                                                                                                        w te test
                                                                                                                 rs




                                                                                                                 rs
                                                                                                        w te test



                                                                                                         new st




                                                                                                                w
                                                                                                             teac
                                                                                                            ache




                                                                                                            ache
                                                                                                   me gy te




                                                                                                            e ne
                                                          Do states measure new




                                                                                                      f som y
                                                                                                  ll ne gy
                                                                                                  ll ne gy




                                                                                        hers ed o agog
                                                                                             of a dago
                                                                                             of a dago



                                                                                             of so dago
                                                          teachers’ knowledge of




                                                                                   teac requir ped




                                                                                                    test
                                                                                         ired al pe
                                                                                         ired n pe
       examples of Best Practice




                                                                                        ired n pe
                                                          teaching and learning?




                                                                                               cial




                                                                                              ogy
                                                                                   requte’s ow




                                                                                   requ merci
                                                                                   requ e’s ow




                                                                                           mer




                                                                                         edag
                                                                                      com
Twenty-three states meet this goal, and




                                                                                     com
                                                                                    Stat




                                                                                   no p
                                                                                    test
                                                                                     Sta
although NCTQ has not singled out one
                                                            alabama
state’s policies for “best practice” honors,                alaska
it additionally commends the eight states                   arizona
(arizona, california, florida, illinois, new                arkansas
Mexico, new york, oklahoma, texas) that                     california
utilize their own assessments to measure                    colorado
pedagogical knowledge and skills.                           connecticut
                                                            Delaware
                                                            District of columbia
                                                            Florida
                                                            Georgia
                                                            hawaii
                                                            idaho
                                                            illinois
                                                            indiana
                                                            iowa
                                                            kansas
                                                            kentucky
                                                            louisiana
                                                            Maine
                                                            Maryland
                                                            Massachusetts
                                                            Michigan
                                                            Minnesota
                                                            Mississippi
                                                            Missouri
                                                            Montana
                                                            nebraska
                                                            Nevada
                                                            new hampshire
                                                            new Jersey
                                                            new Mexico
                                                            new york
                                                            north carolina
                                                            north Dakota
                                                            ohio
                                                            oklahoma
                                                            oregon
                                                            Pennsylvania
                                                            rhode island
                                                            South carolina
                                                            South Dakota
                                                            tennessee
                                                            texas
                                                            Utah1
                                                            Vermont
                                                            Virginia
                                                            Washington
                                                            West Virginia
                                                            Wisconsin
                                                            Wyoming

1 Not required until teacher advances from Level One to                             8      0     18      8     17
  Level Two license.
                                                 area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
                            Goal h – teacher Preparation Program accountability
                        The state’s approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold
                               programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.

                                                                         goal components
                Figure 23
                                                                         (The factors considered in determining the states’
                How States are Faring in Holding Preparation             rating for the goal.)
                Programs Accountable
                                                                         1. The state should collect meaningful data about
                      0     best Practice States                            candidate pass rates on state licensing tests. This
                                                                            means collecting data beyond the pass rate of pro-
                      0     States Meet Goal
                                                                            gram completers. The state should require programs
                      6     States nearly Meet Goal                         to report the percentage of teacher candidates who
                            Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan,          entered student teaching and who were able to
                            Tennessee, Texas                                pass state licensing tests.

                      7     States Partly Meet Goal                      2. In addition to better pass rate information, the
                            Kentucky, Missouri, nevada, New Jersey,         state should create a more comprehensive index of
                            North Carolina, Rhode Island,                   program performance by collecting some or all of
                            South Carolina                                  the following data:
                                                                            n■ Average raw scores of graduates on licensing
                      14    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                               tests, including basic skills, subject matter and
                            Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
                                                                               professional knowledge tests;
                            Mississippi, Montana, New York, Ohio,
                                                                            n■ Satisfaction ratings by school principals and
                            Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
                            Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia                   teacher supervisors of programs’ student teach-
                                                                               ers, using a standardized form to permit program
                      24    States Do not Meet Goal                            comparison;
                            Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado,         n■ Evaluation results from the first and/or second

                            Connecticut, Delaware,                             year of teaching;
                            District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,          n■ Academic achievement gains of graduates’

                            Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,         students averaged over the first three years of
                            Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire,                teaching; and
                            New Mexico, North Dakota,                       n■ Five-year retention rates of graduates in the

                            South Dakota, Utah, Washington,                    teaching profession.
                            Wisconsin, Wyoming
                                                                         3. The state should also establish the minimum standard
                                                                            of performance for each of these categories of data.
            rationale                                                       Programs must be held accountable for meeting these
                                                                            standards, and the state, after due process, should shut
                  See appendix for detailed rationale.
                                                                            down programs that do not do so.
            n     States need to hold programs accountable for
                  the quality of their graduates.                        4. The state should produce and publish on its website
            SuPPorting reSearch                                             an annual report card that shows all the data that
                                                                            the state collects on individual teacher preparation
                  Research citations to support this goal are
                  available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.                 programs.


34 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 1: Goal h Nevada analysis

     State Partly Meets Goal


analySiS                                                            recoMMendation
Nevada relies on some objective, meaningful data to mea-            Nevada meets this goal in part. The state should fur-
sure the performance of teacher preparation programs.               ther expand its use of meaningful, objective data,
The state has set minimum standards for program perfor-             including ensuring that programs are reporting pass
mance; failure to meet those standards precipitates action          rates for individuals entering student teaching, not pro-
by the Board of Education that may result in a program              gram completers, for the former is now the requirement
losing state approval. The Board reviews any program that           under the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education
reports fewer than 95 percent of its teacher candidates             Act. It is also a method that will not mask the number of
passing their licensure tests, or if school districts report that   individuals the program was unable to properly prepare.
more than 5 percent of program graduates newly hired by             Additionally, Nevada should consider collecting specific
                                                                    objective data to create a more comprehensive index
districts are dismissed or not rehired. This 95 percent stan-
                                                                    of program performance. NCTQ recommends satisfac-
dard is among the highest in the nation, with most states
                                                                    tion ratings (by school principals and teacher supervi-
setting the pass-rate standard at 80 percent.
                                                                    sors) of programs’ student teachers, using a standard-
Nevada also requires each teacher preparation program to            ized form to permit program comparison; evaluation
submit an annual report, although it is not clear how the           results from first and/or second year of teaching; and
information gained from these reports contributes to the            academic achievement gains of students taught by the
program approval process. The report must include:                  programs’ graduates, averaged over the first three years
  • The annual accountability report submitted by the               of teaching.
    institution to the federal government;                          Finally, Nevada should post an annual report card on its
  • Information regarding the types of teaching positions           website that details the data it collects and the criteria
    program graduates have attained;                                used for program approval. This report card should also
                                                                    identify the programs that fail to meet these criteria
  • A satisfaction survey that asks program graduates and
                                                                    and cite the reasons why they failed.
    principals to give their view on the quality of a pro-
    gram’s preparation; and
 • A plan for improvement based upon these findings.
                                                                    nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Regrettably, Nevada’s website does not include a report             Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
card that allows the public to review and compare pro-
gram performance.

SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code 391.558, -.560




                                                                                         nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 35
                                                                                                                         Nevada
Figure 24




                                                                                                        y
                                                                         ance



                                                                                             ebsi ublicl
Do states hold teacher




                                      cific ctive
                                           data




                                                                      orm
                                                             s for imum




                                                                                                 te
                                                                                         on w ata p
                                 -spe bje
preparation programs




                                                                  perf
                              ram cts o
                                                                                                                    examples of Best Practice




                                                         dard min




                                                                                    lable es d
accountable?




                         progte colle




                                                                                avai te mak
                                                    stante sets
                                                                                                            Although no state meets this goal, alabama,




                          Sta




                                                     Sta




                                                                                 Sta
                                                                                                            florida, louisiana and Michigan rely on some objective,
  alabama
  alaska
                                                                                                            meaningful data to measure the performance of
  arizona                                                                                                   teacher preparation programs, and they also all apply
  arkansas                                                                                                  transparent measurable criteria for conferring program
  california                                                                                                approval. Additionally, these four states post program
  colorado                                                                                                  report cards on their websites.
  connecticut
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida                                                                                                     Figure 25
  Georgia
                                                                                                              Which states collect meaningful data?
  hawaii
  idaho
  illinois                                                                                                    averaGe raW ScOreS ON liceNSiNG TeSTS
  indiana                                                                                                     alabama, louisiana, Michigan, new Jersey, tennessee
  iowa
                                                                                                              SaTiSFacTiON raTiNG FrOm ScHOOlS
  kansas
                                                                                                              alabama, Florida, kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
  kentucky
                                                                                                              Nevada, texas, Virginia
  louisiana
  Maine                                                                                                       evaluaTiON reSulTS FOr PrOGram GraduaTeS
  Maryland                                                                                                    Florida, rhode island, South carolina, tennessee, Vermont
  Massachusetts
  Michigan                                                                                                    STudeNT learNiNG GaiNS1
  Minnesota                                                                                                   new Jersey, tennessee, texas
  Mississippi
                                                                                                              TeacHer reTeNTiON raTeS
  Missouri
                                                                                                              Missouri, new Jersey, oregon, texas
  Montana
  nebraska
                                                                                                            1 Louisiana is piloting the use of value-added data that connects student
  Nevada                                                                                                      achievement to teacher preparation programs, but not yet using the
  new hampshire                                                                                               results for accountability purposes.
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming

                          21                          5                          17
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal i – State authority for Program approval
The state should retain full authority over its process for approving teacher
preparation programs.

goal components
                                                       Figure 26
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                       How States are Faring in Maintaining Authority
                                                       for Program Approval
1. The state should not allow its teacher prepara-
   tion programs to substitute national accredita-           0     best Practice States
   tion for state program approval.
                                                             31    States Meet Goal
                                                                   Alabama, California, Colorado,
2. The state should not require its teacher prepara-
                                                                   District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho,
   tion programs to attain national accreditation in               Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
   order to receive state approval.                                Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi,
                                                                   Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
rationale                                                          New Hampshire, New Mexico,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                           North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
                                                                   Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
n   States should not cede oversight author-                       Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
    ity over their teacher preparation programs to                 Washington, Wisconsin
    accreditors.
SuPPorting reSearch
                                                             0     States nearly Meet Goal

    Research citations to support this goal are              7     States Partly Meet Goal
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.                      Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
                                                                   Louisiana, nevada, South Carolina

                                                             3     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                   Maryland, West Virginia, Wyoming

                                                             10    States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                   Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
                                                                   Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
                                                                   North Carolina, Ohio, Utah




                                                                                 nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 37
                                                                                                                 Nevada
          area 1: Goal i Nevada analysis

               State Partly Meets Goal


          analySiS                                                     recoMMendation
          Nevada does not require its teacher preparation pro-         Nevada meets this goal in part. Although the state is
          grams to attain national accreditation in order to receive   commended for not requiring its preparation programs
          state approval. However, the state has delegated its pro-    to attain national accreditation, it should articulate its
          gram review to NCATE.                                        own benchmarks for program approval.

          SuPPorting reSearch
          NCATE State Partnership Features 2009
                                                                       nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          http://www.ncate.org/documents/stateRelations/
                                                                       Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
          NCATEStatePartFeatures2008.pdf




38 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
                                                                          Figure 28




                                                                                                                                             but
                                                                                                                                            able
                                                                                                                                 ting , the




                                                                                                                               roce lays
                                                                                                                                         ired




                                                                                                                              men review,
                                                                                                                                       uish
                                                                                                                    atio is indisequired




                                                                                                                     ppro nizat al
                                                                                                                          val p ion p
                                                                          What is the relationship




                                                                                                                                   requ



                                                                                                                         te a n be




                                                                                                               ate a orga ation
                                                                                                                                    val




                                                                                                                                     ss
                                                                                                                                   t
                                                                                                                    e inv gram
                                                                                                                              ppro
                                                                                                                    r sta ion ca




                                                                                                                                ct
                                                                                                                              n is




                                                                                                          accr rocess ally r




                                                                                                          in st n but uire n



                                                                                                                          distin
                                                                          between state program




                                                                                                                         olve
                                                                                                              appr itatio




                                                                                                               som its pro
         examples of Best Practice




                                                                                                              ed fo itat


                                                                                                   from oval p hnic




                                                                                                   a role tio req
                                                                                                                        n




                                                                                                                    own
                                                                                                                    oval
                                                                          approval and national




                                                                                                        tate ccred



                                                                                                        titut ccred




                                                                                                                    ess
                                                                                                         edita not
                                                                                                                t tec




                                                                                                         tains ates




                                                                                                              proc
                                                                                                               edit




                                                                                                              s its
                                                                                                    accr te does
                                                                                                   main e deleg
                                                                                                   for stional a



                                                                                                   subs ional a


                                                                                                           e no
                                                                          accreditation?




                                                                                                         e ha
Thirty-one states meet this goal, and although NCTQ




                                                                                                        oval
                                                                                                      Whil
                                                                                                    appr




                                                                                                      Sta



                                                                                                    Stat
                                                                                                    Stat
                                                                                                    nat




                                                                                                   appr
                                                                                                    na
has not singled out one state’s policies for “best prac-
                                                                            alabama
tice” honors, it commends all states that retain full
                                                                            alaska
authority over their program approval process.
                                                                            arizona
                                                                            arkansas
                                                                            california
Figure 27                                                                   colorado
What is the relationship between state program                              connecticut
approval and national accreditation?                                        Delaware
                                                                            District of columbia
                                                                            Florida
                                                                            Georgia
                                                                            hawaii
  national accreditation is
  required for state approval                  7                            idaho
                                                                            illinois
                                                                            indiana
  national accreditation can be
  substituted for state approval       1                                    iowa
                                                                            kansas
                                                                            kentucky
  While not technically
                                                                            louisiana
  required, the approval
  process is indistinguishable
  from accreditation
                                            5                               Maine
                                                                            Maryland1
  the state delegates its                                                   Massachusetts
  program review, but
  maintains some involvement
                                    4                  Nevada
                                                                            Michigan
                                                                            Minnesota
  State does not require                                                    Mississippi
  national accreditation but
  organization plays a role in            3                                 Missouri
  state approval process                                                    Montana
                                                                            nebraska
                                                                            Nevada
  the state has its own
  distinct approval process                                          31     new hampshire
                                                                            new Jersey
                                                                            new Mexico
                                                                            new york
                                                                            north carolina
                                                                            north Dakota
                                                                            ohio
                                                                            oklahoma
                                                                     31     oregon
                                                                            Pennsylvania
                                                                            rhode island
                                                                            South carolina
                                                                            South Dakota
                                                                            tennessee
Figure 28                                                                   texas
1 Maryland requires programs that enroll 2,000 or more students to
   attain national accreditation.                                           Utah
2 West Virginia public preparation programs are required to attain          Vermont
  national accreditation.                                                   Virginia
                                                                            Washington
                                                                            West Virginia2
                                                                            Wisconsin
                                                                            Wyoming

                                                                                                   7       1       5      4       3      31
                                                       area 1: identifying effective Teachers
                                               Goal J – balancing Professional coursework
              The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide an efficient
                                                             and balanced program of study.

                                                                       goal components
             Figure 29
                                                                       (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in Balancing Professional           states’ rating for the goal.)
             Coursework
                                                                       1. The state should adopt policies designed to
                   0     best Practice States                             encourage efficient delivery of the professional
                                                                          sequence, for both its own requirements and
                   3     States Meet Goal
                                                                          those of individual programs.
                         California, Tennessee, Virginia

                   1     State nearly Meets Goal
                         New Jersey                                    rationale
                                                                           See appendix for detailed rationale.
                   0     States Partly Meet Goal
                                                                       n   Most states have programs that demand exces-
                   6     States Meet a Small Part of Goal                  sive requirements.
                         Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
                                                                       n   States need to monitor programs’ total profes-
                         New Hampshire, Texas, Vermont
                                                                           sional coursework requirements.
                   41    States Do not Meet Goal                       SuPPorting reSearch
                         Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
                                                                           Research citations to support this goal are
                         Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
                                                                           available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                         Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
                         Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
                         Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
                         Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
                         nevada, New Mexico, New York,
                         North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
                         Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
                         Rhode Island, South Carolina,
                         South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
                         West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming




40 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 1: Goal J Nevada analysis

    State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                      Secondary teacher candidates must complete 22 semester
Nevada specifies a minimum amount of professional             hours of professional coursework, including the following:
education coursework that teacher candidates must                  • Eight semester hours in supervised student teaching;
complete to qualify for licensure.                                   and
Elementary teacher candidates must complete 32                     • A course in the methods and materials of teaching
semester hours of professional coursework, including                 a field of specialization.
the following requirements:                                   Although Nevada sets minimum coursework require-
  • Eight semester hours in supervised student teaching;      ments for its teacher candidates, the state lacks any
  • Nine semester hours in methods of teaching ele-           policy that monitors the number of credit hours that
    mentary subjects;                                         preparation programs actually require.
  • Nine semester hours in the teaching of literacy or        Regrettably, some of Nevada’s teacher preparation pro-
    language arts; and                                        grams are indeed requiring excessive amounts of course-
  • Six semester hours in any of the following sub-           work. For example, elementary teacher candidates at the
    jects: classroom management, English as a second          University of Nevada - Las Vegas must complete 85 credit
    language, technology, evaluation of pupils, child         hours in education and related professional coursework.
    development, special education, and social and            In addition, special education teacher candidates at Nevada
    cultural issues.                                          State College are required to complete 60 professional
                                                              credit hours.
Middle school teacher candidates must complete 24
semester hours of professional coursework, including
                                                              SuPPorting reSearch
the following:
                                                              Nevada Administrative Code 391.095, -.111, -.120
  • Eight semester hours in supervised student teaching;
                                                              http://ci.unlv.edu/files/C&I_Undergraduate_
  • A course in methods of teaching middle school subjects;   Catalog_2008-2010.pdf
  • Three semester hours in pupils with disabilities, foun-
                                                              http://www.nsc.nevada.edu/3764.asp
    dations of education or methods in teaching English
    language learners;
  • Six semester hours in at least two of the following:
    foundations, history, theory or philosophy of mid-
    dle school; curriculum, pedagogy or assessment for
    middle school; adolescent growth and development;
    nature and needs of the adolescent, including social,
    emotional and cultural concerns; classroom manage-
    ment strategies; school, family and community col-
    laboration; or supervision and evaluation of programs
    and pupils in a middle school; and
  • Six semester hours in any of the following: English as
    a second language, bilingualism or biculturalism; edu-
    cational technology; tests and measurement; educa-
    tional psychology; education of the exceptional child;
    multicultural education; or educational research.




                                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 41
                                                                                                                   Nevada
          recoMMendation
          Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should adopt a
          policy that targets the tendency of preparation programs
          to require increasing amounts of professional course-
          work; policy that addresses only the minimum course-
          work requirements does nothing to check this tendency.
          The state should encourage efficient delivery of content
          to teacher candidates and ensure that programs focus
          on preparation that will make teachers ultimately more
          effective in the classroom. Excessive coursework require-
          ments do not leave room for electives or, in some cases,
          adequate subject-matter preparation. They may also
          discourage talented individuals from pursuing teaching
          careers.
          Nevada should also review these coursework require-
          ments on a regular basis to weigh their benefits and
          eliminate any requirements that are not relevant to
          teacher effectiveness. If the state chooses not to limit
          the amount of professional coursework required by its
          teacher preparation programs, it should mandate that
          programs with excessive requirements show measurably
          superior results over programs with fewer.



          nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




42 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
  Figure 30
                                                                         examples of Best Practice
  Do states cap the amount of professional
  coursework programs can require?                                Although no state was awarded “best practice” honors,
                                                                  virginia and tennessee are notables because both
                                                                  keep a check on the amount of professional studies that
                                                                  preparation programs may require.
                                            47
                          Nevada
                                                                    Figure 32
                                                                    Are states controlling program excesses?

                                                                                                                             Nevada


                                                                                         71

                           4

                          yes1                no
                                                                                      44
1 California, New Jersey2, Tennessee, Virginia.
2 Although not technically a cap, New Jersey requires a minimum
  of 90 credit hours distributed among general education and an
  academic major.




                                                                              States with at least one approved
  Figure 31                                                                program that requires 60 or more credit
  Coursework that supports teacher                                            hours in professional coursework
  effectiveness
                                                                  1 California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
  in monitoring the amount of professional                          Tennessee, Virginia
  coursework required by teacher preparation
  programs, states also need to consider whether
  professional requirements support teacher
  effectiveness in the classroom. States should
  ensure that the following key areas are addressed:
  n Methods for teaching subject matter
  n child or adolescent development, with
    emphasis on cognitive psychology
  n classroom management
  n assessment
  n Special education
  n contemporary issues in education, particularly
    the achievement gap




                                                                                           nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 43
                                                                                                                           Nevada
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal a – alternate route eligibility
The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission
requirements of traditional preparation programs while also being flexible to the
needs of nontraditional candidates.
goal components
                                                   Figure 33
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)                      How States are Faring in Alternate Route
                                                   Eligibility
1. With some accommodation for work experi-
   ence, alternate route programs should screen          1     best Practice State
   candidates for academic ability, such as                    Connecticut
   requiring a minimum 2.75 overall college GPA.
                                                         0     States Meet Goal
2. All alternate route candidates, including             12    States nearly Meet Goal
   elementary candidates and those having a                    Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana,
   major in their intended subject area, should                Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
   be required to pass a subject-matter test.                  New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
                                                               Rhode Island, Tennessee
3. Alternate route candidates lacking a major in
   the intended subject area should be able to           16    States Partly Meet Goal
   demonstrate subject-matter knowledge by                     Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, District of
   passing a test of sufficient rigor.                         Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky,
                                                               Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South
                                                               Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West
rationale
                                                               Virginia
     See appendix for detailed rationale.
                                                         16    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n■   Alternate route teachers need the advantage               California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,
     of a strong academic background.                          Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
n■   Academic requirements for admission                       nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
     to alternate routes should exceed the                     Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Wyoming
     requirements for traditional programs.
                                                         6     States Do not Meet Goal
n■   Multiple ways for assessing subject-matter                Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota,
     competency are needed to accommodate                      Utah, Wisconsin
     nontraditional candidates.
SuPPorting reSearch
     Research citations to support this goal are
     available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




                                                                             nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 45
                                                                                                             Nevada
         area 2: Goal a Nevada analysis

              State Meets a Small Part of Goal


         analySiS                                                    original concept behind the alternate route into teach-
         While the admission requirements for Nevada’s alter-        ing is that the nontraditional candidate is able to con-
         nate route do not exceed those for traditional prepa-       centrate on acquiring professional knowledge and skills
         ration programs, the state does require evidence of         because he or she has demonstrated strong subject-
         subject-matter knowledge.                                   area knowledge and/or an above-average academic
         Nevada classifies the Conditional License and Special       background. The state can make accommodations for
         Qualifications License as its alternate routes to teacher   mid-career candidates.
         certification.                                              Nevada is commended for its requirement that candi-
         Nevada does not require Conditional License or Special      dates pass a subject-matter test to demonstrate strong
         Qualifications candidates to demonstrate prior aca-         content knowledge. The state should also consider
         demic performance, such as a minimum GPA. Second-           allowing secondary candidates required to have a major
         ary candidates are required to have a major in the de-      to use the subject-matter exam to test out of course-
         sired area of licensure. All candidates must pass a basic   work requirements. Provided the state sets an appro-
         skills test and a subject-matter test. The subject-matter   priately high passing score, the test allows the state to
         test may not be used as a test-out option for secondary     uphold its standards while also offering nontraditional
         candidate coursework requirements.                          candidates important flexibility in how they demon-
                                                                     strate their subject-matter knowledge. Rigid course-
         Special Qualifications candidates must also have at least
                                                                     work requirements can dissuade talented individuals
         five years of experience working in a field for which the
                                                                     who lack precisely the right courses from pursuing a
         applicant will provide instruction in a classroom, or two
                                                                     career in teaching.
         years of experience teaching at an accredited degree-
         granting postsecondary educational institution in a         Nevada’s requirement that alternate route candidates
         field for which the applicant will provide instruction      pass a basic skills test is impractical and ineffectual.
         in a classroom, plus at least three years of experience     Basic skills tests measure minimum competency-
         working in that field.                                      -essentially those skills that a person should have
                                                                     acquired in middle school. Passage of a basic skills
         SuPPorting reSearch                                         test provides no assurance that the candidate has the
         NAC 391.057                                                 appropriate subject-matter knowledge needed for the
                                                                     classroom. Such tests should be used for admission into
         http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/AB/
                                                                     undergraduate teacher preparation programs. The state
         AB428_EN.pdf
                                                                     should eliminate the basic skills test requirement, or, at
         http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/Special_Qualifications.htm     a minimum, accept the equivalent in SAT, ACT or GRE
                                                                     scores.

         recoMMendation
         Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. Nevada         nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
         should require that alternate route candidates pro-         Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
         vide some evidence of good academic performance.            enhanced our analysis.
         The standard should be higher than what is required of
         traditional teacher candidates, such as a 2.75 GPA. The




46 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
                                                                  Figure 34




                                                                                                                    ogra ssion




                                                                                                        requ f major est can
                                                                                                               al pr dmi
                                                                                                                         ms



                                                                                                                        red
                                                                  Are states’ alternate




                                                                                                             irem or
                                                                                                                   equi
                                                                                                         ition for a




                                                                                                                   ents
                                                                                               sew lieu o or t
                                                                  routes selective yet




                                                                                                              est r
                                                                                                     trad ard




                                                                                           cour sed in required




                                                                                                               e
       examples of Best Practice




                                                                                                          rout
                                                                                                 eds tand




                                                                                                         ter t
                                                                  flexible?




                                                                                                      ate
                                                                                            exce demic s




                                                                                                     mat



                                                                                            be u ajor

                                                                                                    ork



                                                                                                 ltern
                                                                                                ect-


                                                                                             no m
connecticut meets three admission criteria for a qual-




                                                                                            no a
                                                                                             aca




                                                                                            Subj
ity alternate route: 1) a requirement that candidates
                                                                    alabama                                        1

have a GPA higher than what is generally expected in                alaska
a traditional preparation program, 2) a requirement                 arizona
that all candidates pass a subject-area test and 3) flex-           arkansas
ibility built into its policy that respects nontraditional          california
candidates’ diverse backgrounds.                                    colorado
                                                                    connecticut
                                                                    Delaware
                                                                    District of columbia
                                                                    Florida
                                                                    Georgia
                                                                    hawaii
                                                                    idaho
                                                                    illinois
                                                                    indiana
                                                                    iowa
                                                                    kansas
                                                                    kentucky
                                                                    louisiana
                                                                    Maine
                                                                    Maryland
                                                                    Massachusetts
                                                                    Michigan
                                                                    Minnesota
                                                                    Mississippi
                                                                    Missouri
                                                                    Montana
                                                                    nebraska
                                                                    Nevada
                                                                    new hampshire
                                                                    new Jersey
                                                                    new Mexico
                                                                    new york
                                                                    north carolina
                                                                    north Dakota
                                                                    ohio
                                                                    oklahoma
                                                                    oregon
                                                                    Pennsylvania
                                                                    rhode island
                                                                    South carolina
                                                                    South Dakota
                                                                    tennessee
                                                                    texas
                                                                    Utah
                                                                    Vermont
                                                                    Virginia
                                                                    Washington
                                                                    West Virginia
                                                                    Wisconsin
                                  Figure 34
                                                                    Wyoming
                                   1 Elementary candidates only
                                                                                           11       28        19        1
           Figure 35                                                                       Figure 36
           Do states require alternate routes to                                           Do states ensure that alternate route
           be selective?                                                                   teachers have subject matter knowledge?

                                                                                                                     Nevada
    Nevada                           21
                                                                                                       28                     22
                18                                       11

                                                                               1
             no academic           academic           academic           no alternate
              standard1            standard
                                    too low
                                                       standard
                                                     exceeds that
                                                                           route3                                                                      1
                                                     of traditional
                                                      programs2                                      Subject             insufficient                  no
                                                                                                   matter test             testing                 alternate
                                                                                                   required for        requirements1,2               route3
                                                                                                    admission
           1 California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
             Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon,                        1 State does not require subject test at all; exempts some candidates; or
             South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin                does not require candidate to pass test until program completion.
           2 Arizona, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,    2 Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
             New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee                   Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
                                                                                           North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
           3 North Dakota                                                                  Wisconsin, Wyoming
                                                                                         3 North Dakota




                                                                                           Figure 37
                                                                                           Do states accommodate the nontraditional
                                                                                           background of alternate route candidates?
                                                                                                                                                   Nevada


                                                                                                                                         31


                                                                                              11
                                                                                                                     8
                                                                                                                                                               1
                                                                                        test can be used       no major or     Major or                        no
                                                                                         in lieu of major      subject area   coursework                   alternate
                                                                                          or coursework        coursework required with no                   route3
                                                                                          requirements1       requirements2 test out option

                                                                                         1 Alabama4, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina,
                                                                                           Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
                                                                                         2 Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana,
                                                                                           Massachusetts, Mississippi, Washington
                                                                                         3 North Dakota
                                                                                         4 For elementary candidates only



48 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal b – alternate route Preparation
The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation
that is relevant to the immediate needs of new teachers.

goal components
                                                                 Figure 38
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
                                                                 How States are Faring in Alternate Route
                                                                 Preparation
1. The state should ensure that the number of credit
   hours it either requires or allows is manageable for                0     best Practice States
   the new teacher. Anything exceeding 12 credit hours
                                                                       4     States Meet Goal
   of coursework (for which the teacher is required to
                                                                             Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey
   physically attend a lecture or seminar) in the first
   year may be counterproductive, placing too great a                  4     States nearly Meet Goal
   burden on the teacher. This calculation is premised                       Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia
   on no more than 6 credit hours in the summer, 3 in
   the fall and 3 in the spring.                                       14    States Partly Meet Goal
                                                                             Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa,
2. The state should ensure that alternate route                              Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
   programs offer accelerated study not to exceed six                        New York, South Carolina, South Dakota,
   courses (exclusive of any credit for mentoring) over                      Texas, Utah, West Virginia
   the duration of the program. Programs should be no
   longer than two years, at which time the new teach-                 17    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
   er should be eligible for a standard certificate.                         Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois,
                                                                             Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana,
3. Any coursework requirements should target the                             nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma,
   immediate needs of the new teacher (e.g., semi-                           Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
   nars with other grade-level teachers, training in a                       Washington, Wyoming
   particular curriculum, reading instruction and class-
   room management techniques).                                        12    States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                             Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
4. The state should ensure that candidates have an                           Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
   opportunity to practice teach in a summer train-                          North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
   ing program. Alternatively, the state can provide an
   intensive mentoring experience, beginning with a
   trained mentor assigned full-time to the new teach-
   er for the first critical weeks of school and gradually
   reducing the amount of time. The state should
   support only induction strategies that can be
   effective even in a poorly managed school: intensive
   mentoring, seminars appropriate to grade level or         n   Induction support is especially important for alternate route
   subject area, a reduced teaching load and frequent            teachers.
   release time to observe other teachers.                   SuPPorting reSearch

rationale                                                        Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                 available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
    See appendix for detailed rationale.
n   The program must provide practical, meaningful
    preparation that is sensitive to a new teacher’s                                     nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 49
    stress level.                                                                                                        Nevada
          area 2: Goal b Nevada analysis

              State Meets a Small Part of Goal


          analySiS                                                  recoMMendation
          Nevada does not ensure that its alternate route candi-    Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. Nevada
          dates will receive streamlined preparation that meets     should articulate guidelines regarding the nature and
          the immediate needs of new teachers.                      amount of coursework required of candidates. Re-
          Conditional License early childhood candidates must       quirements should be manageable and contribute to
          complete 35 credit hours of coursework, elementary        the immediate needs of new teachers. Appropriate
          candidates must complete 32 credit hours of course-       coursework should include grade-level or subject-level
          work and secondary candidates must complete 22            seminars, methodology in the content area, classroom
          credit hours of coursework. Candidates who have com-      management, assessment and scientifically based early
          pleted student teaching may be able to reduce course-     reading instruction. Simply mandating coursework
          work requirements.                                        without specifying the purpose can inadvertently send
                                                                    the wrong message to program providers--that “any-
          There is no requirement for practice teaching, although
                                                                    thing goes” as long as credits are granted. However con-
          all candidates receive mentoring.
                                                                    structive, any course that is not fundamentally practical
          Special Qualification License candidates who hold a       and immediately necessary should be eliminated as a
          bachelor’s or a master’s degree must submit proof of      requirement.
          participation in a program of student teaching or men-
                                                                    Further, programs should not be permitted to overbur-
          toring or agree to participate in a program of mentor-
                                                                    den the new teacher by requiring multiple courses to be
          ing or courses of pedagogy for the first two years of
                                                                    taken simultaneously during the school year. The state
          employment as a teacher.
                                                                    should also ensure that the program can be completed
          Upon completion of the approved teacher education         within two years, and candidates should be eligible for
          program and three years of satisfactory teaching expe-    a standard certificate upon completion.
          rience candidates can earn full certification.
                                                                    Nevada is commended for requiring Special Qualifica-
                                                                    tion candidates to participate in some form of practice
          Supporting research
                                                                    teaching and mentoring. Nevada should provide more
          NAC 391.057
                                                                    detailed mentoring guidelines for all candidates to
                                                                    ensure that new teachers will receive the support they
                                                                    need to facilitate their success in the classroom. Effec-
                                                                    tive strategies include practice teaching prior to start-
                                                                    ing to teach in the classroom, intensive mentoring with
                                                                    full classroom support in the first few weeks or months
                                                                    of school, a reduced teaching load and relief time to
                                                                    allow new teachers to observe experienced teachers
                                                                    during each school day.



                                                                    nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                                    Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
                                                                    enhanced our analysis.




50 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
Figure 39




                                                                                                     nity
                                                                                                  ngth
Do states’ alternate routes




                                                                                                 ortu
                                             ork




                                                                                              m le
provide streamlined




                                                                                              opp
                                          sew



                                                                   ork




                                                                                                                             e
                                                                                         ogra




                                                                                                                         rout
                                                                sew




                                                                                           rt
                                      cour




                                                                                        hing
preparation that meets




                                                                                       ppo
                                                                                    le pr
                                                            cour




                                                                                                                     ate
                                                                                   teac
                                 ined
the immediate needs of




                                                                                  e su



                                                                                                                ltern
                                                                              onab
                                                       vant




                                                                              tice



                                                                             nsiv
                              aml
new teachers?




                                                                                                            no a
                                                                         reas



                                                                         Prac
                                                   rele
                          Stre




                                                                         inte
  alabama
  alaska
  arizona
  arkansas
  california
  colorado
  connecticut
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia
  hawaii
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming

                          14                       9                     24         16          12           1
             Figure 40
                                                                                             examples of Best Practice
             Do states curb excessive coursework
             requirements?                                                             arkansas, delaware, georgia and new jersey ensure
                                                                 Nevada
                                                                                       that their alternate routes provide streamlined prepa-
                                                                                       ration that meets the immediate needs of new teach-
                                                       32                              ers. Each state requires a manageable number of credit
                                                                                       hours, relevant coursework and intensive mentoring.




               14
                                     4
                                                                            1
                yes1           Somewhat2                no            no alternate
                                                                        route3

           1 Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
             Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas,
             Virginia
           2 Indiana, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming
           3 North Dakota



             Figure 41
             Do states require mentoring of high quality
             and intensity?

                                                       Nevada



                                             38



                        12

                                                                     1
                        yes1                   no                   no
                                                                alternate
                                                                  route2

           1 Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,
             Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia
           2 North Dakota




52 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal c – alternate route Usage and Providers
The state should provide an alternate route that is free from regulatory obstacles
that inappropriately limit its usage and providers.

goal components
                                                        Figure 42
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
                                                        How States are Faring in Alternate Route
                                                        Usage and Providers
1. The state should not treat the alternate route
   as a program of last resort or restrict the avail-         0     best Practice States
   ability of alternate routes to certain geographic
                                                              20    States Meet Goal
   areas, grades or subject areas.
                                                                    Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,
                                                                    District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
2. The state should allow districts and nonprofit                   Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
   organizations other than institutions of higher                  Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
   education to operate alternate route programs.                   North Carolina, Rhode Island,
                                                                    South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
3. The state should ensure that its alternate route                 Virginia, Wisconsin
   has no requirements that would be difficult to
   meet for a provider that is not an institution of          4     States nearly Meet Goal
   higher education. Such requirements include
                                                                    New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
                                                                    West Virginia
   an approval process based on institutional
   accreditation or raining requirements articulat-
                                                              10    States Partly Meet Goal
   ed in only credit hours and not clock hours.                     Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana,
                                                                    Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico,
rationale                                                           Oklahoma, Washington

    See appendix for detailed rationale.                      2     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                    South Carolina, Vermont
n   Alternate routes should be structured to do
    more than just address shortages; they should             15    States Do not Meet Goal
    provide an alternative pipeline for talented                    Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
    individuals to enter the profession.                            Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
SuPPorting reSearch                                                 nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,
                                                                    Wyoming
    Research citations to support this goal are
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




                                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 53
                                                                                                                   Nevada
          area 2: Goal c Nevada analysis

               State Does not Meet Goal


          analySiS                                                     recoMMendation
          Nevada limits the usage and providers of its alternate       Nevada does not meet this goal. Nevada should provide
          route.                                                       a true alternative path to certification and eliminate
          Nevada’s Conditional License does not have restrictions      requirements that alternate route teachers can only be
          on the usage of its alternate routes with regard to sub-     hired if traditionally certified teachers cannot be found.
          ject, grade or geographic teaching areas. However, the       The state should allow new teachers to work across all
          state does require districts to document that no tradi-      grades, subjects and geographic areas.
          tionally prepared teachers were available. Nevada lim-       The state should also encourage a diversity of providers,
          its Special Qualification candidates to teaching only in     allowing school districts and nonprofit organizations, in
          middle school grades                                         addition to institutions of higher education, to operate
          The state only permits institutions of higher educa-         programs.
          tion to provide alternate route programs. Coursework
          requirements are set out only in credit hours, effectively
          precluding non-higher education providers.                   nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                                       Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
          Supporting research                                          enhanced our analysis.
          NAC 391.057 and 391.058
          http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/AB/
          AB428_EN.pdf




54 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
                                                       Figure 43




                                                                                                    c are ,
                                                                                                aphi jects
                                                                                                         as
                                                       Are states’ alternate




                                                                                            eogr sub




                                                                                                                             s
                                                                                                                         ider
                                                                                        nd g ross
                                                       routes free from




                                                                                                                                                  e
                                                                                                                                              rout
                                                                                                                     prov
                                                                                    es a e ac
      examples of Best Practice                        limitations?




                                                                                                                                          ate
                                                                                gradad usag




                                                                                                                        of




                                                                                                                                     ltern
                                                                                                                  rsity
Twenty states meet this goal, and although NCTQ




                                                                                                                                 no a
                                                                                                              Dive
                                                                                 bro
has not singled out one state’s policies for “best
                                                         alabama
practice” honors, it commends all states that permit     alaska
both broad usage and a diversity of providers for        arizona
their alternate routes.                                  arkansas
                                                         california
                                                         colorado
                                                         connecticut
                                                         Delaware
                                                         District of columbia
                                                         Florida
                                                         Georgia
                                                         hawaii
                                                         idaho
                                                         illinois
                                                         indiana
                                                         iowa
                                                         kansas
                                                         kentucky
                                                         louisiana
                                                         Maine
                                                         Maryland
                                                         Massachusetts
                                                         Michigan
                                                         Minnesota
                                                         Mississippi
                                                         Missouri
                                                         Montana
                                                         nebraska
                                                         Nevada
                                                         new hampshire
                                                         new Jersey
                                                         new Mexico
                                                         new york
                                                         north carolina
                                                         north Dakota
                                                         ohio
                                                         oklahoma
                                                         oregon
                                                         Pennsylvania
                                                         rhode island
                                                         South carolina
                                                         South Dakota
                                                         tennessee
                                                         texas
                                                         Utah
                                                         Vermont
                                                         Virginia
                                                         Washington
                                                         West Virginia
                                                         Wisconsin
                                                         Wyoming

                                                                                 28                           26                  1
                                               Figure 44
                                               Can alternate route teachers teach any
                                               subject or grade anywhere in the state?


                                                           28
                                                                         Nevada



                                                                   22


                                                                              1
                                                           yes      no        no
                                                                           alternate
                                                                             route



                                               Figure 45
                                               Are providers other than colleges or
                                               universities permitted?


                                                           26             Nevada



                                                                   24


                                                                              1
                                                            yes     no        no
                                                                           alternate
                                                                             route




56 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
Figure 46




                                                       ous
                                              eme ds
                                                    uine




                                                  genu
                                                   nts
                                         prov at nee
Do states provide real




                                       ute gen




                                             disin
alternative pathways?




                                   nt im e th
                                   e ro arly




                                              e
                                                             Figure 47




                                         rout
                                        e is
                              ifica rout
                             rnat r ne




                                     ate
                                                             Do states provide real alternative pathways?




                                   rout
                         altenuine o



                         signernate




                               ltern
                               red



                         no a
                         offe
                                                                               24




                          alt
                          Ge
                                                                                                     Nevada
  alabama
  alaska
  arizona                                                                                     21
  arkansas
  california
  colorado                                                        5
  connecticut
  Delaware
                                                                                                              1
  District of columbia                                        Genuine or     alternate        offered        no
  Florida                                                        nearly      route that       route is    alternate
                                                                genuine         needs      disingenuous     route
  Georgia                                                      alternate     significant
  hawaii                                                         route     improvements
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming

                          5       24       21       1
Figure 48




                                                                                 n
                                                                                 r
                                                                             atte



                                                                      maj st ca




                                                                                                                                 ngth
                                                                        ect m
What are the




                                                                 u of or te




                                                                         ork
                                                                         or
                                           ance




                                                                                                                             m le
                                      rform ng




                                                                                                                                                                     s
                                                                                                                             ort
                                                                     sew



                                                                                                     ork




                                                                                                                                                                 ider
characteristics of




                                 c pe stro



                                                                    subj



                                                           in lie ired




                                                                                                                         ogra



                                                                                                                        supp
                                                                                                  sew
                                                                 cour




                                                                                                                                                             prov
                                                       sed requ
                              emi e of



                                                      wled n of
states’ alternate




                                                                                                                    le pr
                                                                                              cour




                                                                                                                    her



                                                                                                                                                age
                                                          ined
                         acadrequisit




                                                                                                                                                                of
                                                  knorificatio
                                                           ge


                                                         ajor




                                                                                                                teac
                                                                                                               onab
routes?




                                                                                                                                                          rsity
                                                                                                                                            d us
                                                                                         vant
                                                      aml
                                                   no m




                                                                                                           new



                                                                                                                                        broa
                                                                                                           reas




                                                                                                                                                      Dive
                                                  be u




                                                                                     rele
                          Pre




                                                  Stre
                                                   Ve
  alabama
  alaska
  arizona
  arkansas
  california
  colorado
  connecticut
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia
  hawaii
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming

                         11                       28        19          14            9                    24            12             28            26
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal D – alternate route Program accountability
The state should ensure that its approval process for alternate route programs
holds them accountable for the performance of their teachers.

goal components
                                                          Figure 49
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                          How States are Faring in Alternate Route
                                                          Program Accountability
1. The state should collect some or all of the
   following data to create a more comprehensive                0     best Practice States
   index of program performance to hold alternate
                                                                0     States Meet Goal
   route programs accountable:
   n■ Average raw scores of graduates on
                                                                3     States nearly Meet Goal
      licensing tests, including subject matter and                   Florida, Louisiana, Texas
      professional knowledge tests;
   n■ Satisfaction ratings by school principals and             5     States Partly Meet Goal
      teacher supervisors of programs’ student                        Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky,
      teachers, using a standardized form to                          Maryland, Tennessee
      permit program comparison;
   n■ Evaluation results from the first and/or
                                                                8     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                      Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa,
      second year of teaching;
                                                                      Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont,
   n■ Academic achievement gains of graduates’
                                                                      Washington
      students averaged over the first three years
      of teaching; and                                          35    States Do not Meet Goal
   n■ Five-year retention rates of graduates in the                   Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
      teaching profession.                                            District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
                                                                      Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota,
2. The state should also establish the minimum
                                                                      Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
   standard of performance for each of these
                                                                      nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
   categories of data. Programs must be held                          New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
   accountable for meeting these standards, and                       North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
   the state, after due process, should shut down                     Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
   programs that do not do so.                                        South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
                                                                      Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
3. The state should produce and publish on its website
                                                                      Wyoming
   an annual report card that shows all the data that
   the state collects on individual teacher preparation
   programs.

rationale
    See appendix for detailed rationale.
n   Alternate route programs should show they
    consistently produce effective teachers.
SuPPorting reSearch
    Research citations to support this goal are
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                                                                                    nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 59
                                                                                                                    Nevada
          area 2: Goal D Nevada analysis

              State Does not Meet Goal


          analySiS                                                  grams’ student teachers, using a standardized form to
          Nevada neither collects objective, meaningful data to     permit program comparison; 3) evaluation results from
          measure the performance of its alternate route pro-       the first and/or second year of teaching; 4) academic
          grams nor applies any transparent, measurable criteria    achievement gains of students taught by the pro-
          for conferring program approval.                          grams’ graduates, averaged over the first three years
          In addition, Nevada’s website has no report card that     of teaching; and 5) five-year retention rates of gradu-
          allows the public to review and compare program           ates in the teaching profession. To hold these programs
          performance.                                              accountable, the state should then establish a minimum
                                                                    standard of performance for each of these categories of
                                                                    data. Programs that do not meet the standard, after due
                                                                    process, should be shut down.
          recoMMendation
                                                                    Finally, Nevada should post an annual report card on its
          Nevada does not meet this goal. To generate the hard,
                                                                    website that details the data it collects for all programs,
          objective data needed to hold programs accountable,
                                                                    both alternate route and traditional, as well as the
          the state should make objective outcomes the focus of
                                                                    criteria used for program approval. This report card
          its approval process for alternate route programs and
                                                                    should also identify the programs that fail to meet
          establish precise standards for performance that are
                                                                    these criteria and cite the reasons why they failed.
          useful for accountability purposes.
          Nevada should collect meaningful, objective data to
          create a comprehensive index of program performance.
          NCTQ recommends the use of 1) graduates’ average          nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          raw scores on licensing tests (including subject-mat-     Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
          ter and professional knowledge tests); 2) satisfaction
          ratings (by principals and teacher supervisors) of pro-




60 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
Figure 50




                                                                                                        y
                                                                         ance



                                                                                             ebsi ublicl
Do states hold alternate




                                      cific ctive
                                           data




                                                                      orm
                                                             s for imum




                                                                                                 te
                                                                                         on w ata p
route programs




                                 -spe bje




                                                                  perf
                              ram cts o
                                                                                                                     examples of Best Practice




                                                         dard min




                                                                                    lable es d
accountable?




                         progte colle




                                                                                avai te mak
                                                    stante sets
                                                                                                            While no state earns a “best practice” designation for




                          Sta




                                                     Sta




                                                                                 Sta
                                                                                        1
                                                                                                            this goal, louisiana comes the closest. Louisiana uses
  alabama
                                                                                                            objective, meaningful data to measure the performance
  alaska
  arizona                                                                                                   of its alternate route programs and posts this data
  arkansas                                                                                                  annually on the state’s website. Louisiana is also well
  california                                                                                                ahead of other states in setting standards for program
  colorado                                                                                                  performance and measuring each program according
  connecticut                                                                                               to those standards. Program scores are determined
                                                                                        2
  Delaware                                                                                                  on the basis of a relatively complex rating formula.
  District of columbia                                                                                      The state provides a system to reward programs that
                                                                                        1
  Florida                                                                                                   attain performance scores each year at an Exemplary
  Georgia                                                                                                   or High Performing level. Teacher preparation programs
  hawaii
                                                                                                            that are rated as being At Risk for four years or that are
  idaho
                                                                                                            designated as Low Performing and do not become Sat-
  illinois
                                                                                                            isfactory within two years lose their state approval.
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
                                                                                        1
  kentucky
  louisiana                                                                                                   Figure 51
  Maine                                                                                                       Which states collect meaningful data?
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
                                                                                                              averaGe raW ScOreS ON liceNSiNG TeSTS
  Michigan
                                                                                                              tennessee
  Minnesota
  Mississippi                                                                                                 SaTiSFacTiON raTiNG FrOm ScHOOlS
  Missouri                                                                                                    alabama, Florida, kentucky, Maryland, texas, Vermont,
  Montana                                                                                                     Washington
  nebraska
  Nevada                                                                                                      evaluaTiON reSulTS FOr PrOGram GraduaTeS
  new hampshire                                                                                               alabama, Delaware, Michigan, tennessee
  new Jersey
                                                                                                              STudeNT learNiNG GaiNS1
  new Mexico                                                                                                  Florida, tennessee, texas
  new york
  north carolina                                                                                              TeacHer reTeNTiON raTeS
  north Dakota3                                                                                               arkansas, Delaware, Florida, texas
  ohio
  oklahoma
                                                                                                             1 Louisiana is piloting the use of value-added data that connects student
  oregon                                                                                                       achievement to teacher preparation programs, but not yet using the
  Pennsylvania                                                                                                 results for accountability purposes.

  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
                                                                                        2
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington                                                                                                Figure 50
                                                                                                             1 The posted data do not allow the public to review and compare
  West Virginia                                                                                                alternate route program performance because institutional data are not
  Wisconsin                                                                                                    dissaggregated.
  Wyoming                                                                                                   2 The posted data do not allow the public to review and compare
                                                                                                              program performance because data are not disaggregated by individual
                         16                           1                           7                           program provider.
                                                                                                            3 North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certification.
                                                     area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
                                                                      Goal e – licensure reciprocity
            The state should help to make teacher licenses fully portable among states, with
                                                                     appropriate safeguards.

                                                                          goal components
             Figure 52
                                                                          (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in Licensure Reciprocity               states’ rating for the goal.)
                   1     best Practice State                              1. The state should offer fully certified teachers
                         Alabama                                             moving from other states standard licenses,
                                                                             without using transcript analysis or recency
                   1     State Meets Goal
                                                                             requirements as a means of judging eligibility.
                         Texas
                                                                             The state can and should require evidence of
                   3     States nearly Meet Goal                             good standing in previous employment.
                         Delaware, North Carolina, West Virginia
                                                                          2. The state should uphold its standards for all
                   5     States Partly Meet Goal                             teachers by insisting that certified teachers
                         Idaho, New York, Rhode Island,                      coming from other states meet the incoming
                         Washington, Wyoming                                 state’s testing requirements.

                   31    States Meet a Small Part of Goal                 3. The state should accord the same license to
                         Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
                                                                             teachers from other states who completed an
                         District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
                                                                             approved alternate route program as it accords
                         Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
                                                                             teachers prepared in a traditional preparation
                         Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
                                                                             program.
                         Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
                         New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota,
                         Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,            rationale
                         South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
                         Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin                   See appendix for detailed rationale.
                                                                          n   Using transcripts to judge teacher competency
                   10    States Do not Meet Goal                              provides little value.
                         California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
                         Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana,                 n   Testing requirements should be upheld, not
                         Nebraska, nevada                                     waived.
                                                                          n   Signing on to the NASDTEC Interstate Agree-
                                                                              ment at least signals a state’s willingness to
                                                                              consider portability.
                                                                          n   States licensing out-of-state teachers should
                                                                              not differentiate between experienced teach-
                                                                              ers prepared in alternate routes and those
                                                                              prepared in traditional programs.
                                                                          SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                              Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                              available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.


62 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
area 2: Goal e Nevada analysis

     State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                      recoMMendation
Teachers with valid out-of-state certificates may be eli-     Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
gible for Nevada’s initial teaching license.                  consider adopting a more flexible policy regarding
Applicants must have three years of teaching experi-          portability and offer out-of-state teachers compa-
ence, a requirement for which there is no apparent jus-       rable licensure. It should also reconsider its experience
tification. Furthermore, Nevada routinely reviews the         requirement because if the state is willing to hire its
college transcripts of licensed out-of-state teachers.        own inexperienced teachers, it is not clear why it is
States that reach a determination about an applicant’s        unwilling to hire inexperienced teachers from other
licensure status on the basis of the course titles listed     states, unless the state has too great a supply of teach-
on the applicant’s transcript may end up mistakenly           ers and needs to discourage applicants.
equating the amount of required coursework with the           Also, transcript reviews are not a particularly meaning-
teacher’s qualifications.                                     ful or efficient exercise, and the state should consider
The state also requires all out-of-state teachers to ei-      discontinuing its requirement for the submission of
ther take coursework or pass examinations pertaining          transcripts for all teachers. Transcript analysis is likely to
to Nevada school law, the Nevada Constitution and the         result in additional coursework requirements, even for
U.S. Constitution.                                            traditionally prepared teachers; alternate route teach-
                                                              ers, on the other hand, may have to virtually begin
Regrettably, Nevada grants a waiver for its licensing
                                                              anew, repeating some, most or all of a teacher prepara-
tests to any out-of-state teacher with a valid standard
                                                              tion program in Nevada.
license from a state other than Iowa, Maine, Montana,
Nebraska or Rhode Island, and who also has one year           Regardless of whether a teacher was prepared through
of experience.                                                a traditional or alternate route, all certified out-of-state
                                                              teachers should receive equal treatment. State policies
Finally, Nevada has indicated its willingness to sup-
                                                              that discriminate against teachers who were prepared
port the portability of teacher licenses by signing the
                                                              in an alternate route are not supported by evidence. In
NASDTEC (National Association of State Directors of
                                                              fact, a substantial body of research has failed to discern
Teacher Education and Certification) Interstate Agree-
                                                              differences in effectiveness between alternate and tra-
ment. While signing this agreement does not ensure
                                                              ditional route teachers.
that a state will provide unconditional reciprocity, it is,
at the very least, symbolically important. However, it        Nevada’s policy requiring all out-of-state teachers to
has not signed on to the provisions designed to facili-       demonstrate knowledge via courses or tests of Nevada
tate licensure reciprocity for alternate route teachers,      school law, the Nevada Constitution, and the U.S. Con-
regardless of experience.                                     stitution is sensible. However, the state allows teach-
                                                              ers up to three years to meet this requirement, which
SuPPorting reSearch                                           would imply that it does not view this knowledge as
http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/Reciprocity.htm                  essential to a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom.
http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/
TestingExceptionBulletin.htm
http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/Testing_Requirements.htm
www.nasdtec.org




                                                                                    nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 63
                                                                                                                    Nevada
          Nevada should also uphold its standards for all teach-         nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          ers and insist that out-of-state teachers meet its own         Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
          testing requirements. The state takes considerable risk by     The state added that in 2009, the legislature modified
          granting a waiver for its licensing tests to certain out-of-   the teaching experience requirement regarding eligi-
          state teachers with a standard license and one year of         bility for a licensing-test waiver. The Commission on
          experience. The state should not provide any waivers of        Professional Standards is now allowed to determine
          its teacher tests unless an applicant can provide evidence     which examinations from other states are comparable
          of a passing score under its own standards. The negative       to the examinations required for initial licensure in
          impact on student learning stemming from a teacher’s           Nevada.
          inadequate subject-matter knowledge is not mitigated
          by the teacher’s having a license and experience.
          Although Nevada has signed the NASDTEC agreement               laSt Word
          signaling its willingness to support portability, it should    While teachers from states using common assessments
          take specific steps to include reciprocity for all alternate   need not be required to retake licensure tests if they
          route teachers. Such an adjustment in policy would             have met Nevada’s passing scores, Nevada should not
          surely make the state more welcoming to teachers from          grant other waivers to its licensing tests, even absent
          other states.                                                  the one-year experience requirement.




64 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
                                                                              Figure 54




                                                                                                                            h no
                                                                              What do states require




                                                                                                                     hed wit




                                                                                                                                                                 ents
                                                                              of teachers transferring




                                                                                                                ttac city




                                                                                                                                                             irem
       examples of Best Practice




                                                                                                            gs a ipro
                                                                              from other states?




                                                                                                                                                         requ
                                                                                                       strin nse rec




                                                                                                                                            ts
                                                                                                                                       scrip




                                                                                                                                                     ncy
alabama makes teacher licenses fully portable among




                                                                                                        lice




                                                                                                                                                 rece
                                                                                                                                   tran
states by not specifying any additional coursework or
                                                                                alabama
recency requirements to determine eligibility for either                        alaska
traditional or alternate route teachers. The state also                         arizona
does not grant any waivers of its testing requirements                          arkansas
and appropriately requires all out-of-state teachers to                         california
meet Alabama’s passing scores on assessments. It has                            colorado
also signed on to the NASDTEC agreement, signaling                              connecticut
the state’s willingness to consider licensure reciprocity                       Delaware
for teachers from other states.                                                 District of columbia
                                                                                Florida
                                                                                Georgia
                                                                                hawaii
Figure 53
                                                                                idaho
Do states require all out-of-state teachers to                                  illinois
pass their licensure tests?                                                     indiana
                                                 Nevada                         iowa
                                                                                kansas
                                                                                kentucky
                                     36                                         louisiana
                                                                                Maine
                                                                                Maryland
                                                                                Massachusetts
                                                                                Michigan
                     15                                                         Minnesota
                                                                                Mississippi
                                                                                Missouri
                                                                                Montana
                                                                                nebraska
                                                                                Nevada
                      yes1             no                                       new hampshire
                                                                                new Jersey
                                                                                new Mexico
  1 Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,                                    1
    North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,                new york
    Washington, Wisconsin                                                       north carolina
                                                                                north Dakota
                                                                                ohio
                                                                                oklahoma
                                                                                oregon
                                                                                Pennsylvania
                                                                                                               1
                                                                                rhode island
                                                                                South carolina
                                                                                South Dakota
                                                                                tennessee
                                                                                texas
                                                                                Utah
                                                                                Vermont
                                                                                Virginia
                                                                                                               1
                                                                                Washington
                                                                                West Virginia
                                                                                Wisconsin
                                                                                                               1
                                                                                Wyoming

                               Figure 54                                                                   9                       41            14
                                1 For traditionally-prepared teachers only
Figure 55




                                          arati ually




                                                                                                            teac cles
                                                                                                ate r ate o the
                                                                                                                hers
                                                                                 te
Do states treat out-of-state




                                                                                                      oute bsta
                                                                 cher or alt nt
                                                                             erna
                                      prep s eq
                                               on




                                                                                           ltern o cre with
                                                            e tea ts f fere
teachers the same whether




                                  s of cher




                                                        rout iremen fies dif




                                                                                      for aential t policies
they were prepared in a




                             rdles s tea




                                                                      s
                                                         requte speci
traditional or an alternate




                         regate treat




                                                                                       pot te has
route program?




                                                          Sta




                                                                                        Sta
                          Sta
  alabama
  alaska
  arizona
  arkansas
  california
  colorado
  connecticut
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia
  hawaii
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming

                           6                                7                           38
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal a – State Data Systems
The state should develop a data system that contributes some of the evidence
needed to assess teacher effectiveness.

goal components
                                                      Figure 56
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)                                 How States are Faring in the Development
                                                      of Data Systems
1. The state should establish a longitudinal data
   system with at least the following key compo-            1     best Practice State
   nents:                                                         Tennessee
   n■ A unique statewide student identifier number
                                                            0     States Meet Goal
      that connects student data across key data-
      bases across years;                                   2     States nearly Meet Goal
   n■ A unique teacher identifier system that can                 Louisiana, Ohio
      match individual teacher records with indi-
      vidual student records; and                           18    States Partly Meet Goal
   n■ An assessment system that can match indi-                   Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
      vidual student test records from year to year               Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi,
      in order to measure academic growth.                        Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina,
                                                                  Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
2. Value-added data provided through the state’s                  South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia,
   longitudinal data system should be considered                  Wyoming
   among the criteria used to determine teachers’
   effectiveness.                                           28    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                  Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
                                                                  Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho,
rationale                                                         Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                          Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
                                                                  Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
n   Value-added analysis connects student data to                 New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
    teacher data to measure achievement and per-                  Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
    formance.                                                     Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
n   There are a number of responsible uses for
    value-added analysis.                                   2     States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                  Maryland, nevada
SuPPorting reSearch
    Research citations to support this goal are
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




                                                                                nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 67
                                                                                                                Nevada
               area 3: Goal a Nevada analysis

                   State Does not Meet Goal


               analySiS                                                  recoMMendation
               Nevada does not have a data system that can be used       Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should be
               to provide evidence of teacher effectiveness.             able to use its assigned teacher identifiers to match in-
               However, Nevada does have two of three necessary          dividual teacher records with individual student records,
               elements that would allow for the development of a        thereby enabling the development of value-added
               student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system.      analysis. The state should also support the use of value-
               The state has assigned unique student identifiers that    added data to provide part of the evidence of teacher
               connect student data across key databases across years.   effectiveness, particularly for decisions about granting
               It also has the capacity to match student test records    teachers tenure. Value-added data are also important
               from year to year in order to measure student academic    and necessary for local districts adopting performance
               growth.                                                   pay plans to reliably measure individual teacher and
                                                                         overall school performance.
               Although Nevada assigns teacher identification num-
               bers, it cannot match individual teacher records with
               individual student records.
               Regrettably, the state specifically prohibits data from   nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
               the state data system to be used for “the purpose of      Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
               evaluating an individual teacher.”

               SuPPorting reSearch
               www.dataqualitycampaign.org
               Nevada Revised Statute 386.650




68 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
                                                                              Figure 58




                                                                                                                                     ses
                                                                                                                          ss da that




                                                                                                                                                                    time
                                                                                                                                 taba




                                                                                                                                                                      s
                                                                                                                                                             er re ds
                                                                                                                                                                  cord
                                                                                                                     acro tifier




                                                                                                                                   r
                                                                              Do state data systems




                                                                                                                             tifie




                                                                                                                                                         each ecor
                                                                                                                                                               over
                                                                                                                 data iden



                                                                                                                        iden




                                                                                                                                                    ith t ent r
                                                                              have the capacity to




                                                                                                                                                          atch
                                                                                                            ects dent
        examples of Best Practice




                                                                                                                   cher




                                                                                                                                               ch w tud
                                                                              reliably assess teacher




                                                                                                                                                    rds m



                                                                                                                                           mat idual s
                                                                                                       systique tea
                                                                                                       connque stu
                                                                              effectiveness?




                                                                                                                                                reco
                                                                                                           em
tennessee not only has all three elements of a stu-




                                                                                                                                            indiv
                                                                                                        Uni




                                                                                                                                           test
                                                                                                        Un
dent- and teacher-level longitudinal data system--
                                                                                alabama
unique student identifiers that connect student data                            alaska
across key databases across years, unique teacher                               arizona
identifiers that enable the state to match individual                           arkansas
teacher records with individual student records and                             california
the capacity to match student test records from year                            colorado
to year so as to measure student academic growth-                               connecticut
-but it is also the only state that uses this value-                            Delaware
added data to measure teacher effectiveness by                                  District of columbia
isolating each teacher’s impact on individual stu-                              Florida
                                                                                Georgia
dents’ academic growth. It translates this impact
                                                                                hawaii
into a “teacher effect” score and then uses it as part
                                                                                idaho
of a teacher’s evaluation.
                                                                                illinois
                                                                                indiana
                                                                                iowa
Figure 57                                                                       kansas
                                                                                kentucky
Do states use value-added data as a criterion                                   louisiana
for assessing teacher effectiveness?
                                                                                Maine
                                                                                Maryland
                                                                                Massachusetts

                                            48                                  Michigan
                                                                                Minnesota
                                                                                Mississippi
                           Nevada
                                                                                Missouri
                                                                                Montana
                                                                                nebraska
                                                                                Nevada1
                                                                                new hampshire
                                                                                new Jersey
                                                                                new Mexico
                                                                                new york2
                                                                                north carolina
                                                                                north Dakota
                             3                                                  ohio
                                                                                oklahoma
                        Use value-   Do not                                     oregon
                       added data1 use value-                                   Pennsylvania
                                   added data                                   rhode island
                                                                                South carolina
1 Louisiana uses value-added data to assess certain aspects of teacher          South Dakota
  effectiveness; however, this information is not used to decide tenure.
  Ohio uses value-added data to improve classroom instruction;                  tennessee
  however, it is not clear whether this information plays a role in teacher     texas
  evaluations. Tennessee uses value-added data to measure teacher
  effectiveness by isolating the impact each teacher has on individual          Utah
  students’ academic growth, which can be used as part of a teacher’s           Vermont
  evaluation.
                                                                                Virginia
                                                                                Washington
                                                                                West Virginia
Figure 58
 1 Nevada prohibits the use of value-added data in teacher evaluations.
                                                                                Wisconsin
2 New York prohibits the use of student-achievement data in teacher
                                                                                Wyoming
  tenure decisions.
                                                                                                        50               46                48            21
                                                      area 3: identifying effective Teachers
                                                            Goal b – evaluation of effectiveness
                    The state should require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant
                                                             criterion of any teacher evaluation.

                                                                      goal components
             Figure 59
                                                                      (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in Evaluating                      states’ rating for the goal.)
             Teacher Effectiveness
                                                                      1. The state should either require a common
                   1     best Practice State                             evaluation instrument in which evidence of stu-
                         Florida
                                                                         dent learning is the most significant criterion or
                                                                         should specifically require that student learn-
                   3     States Meet Goal
                         South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas                ing be the preponderant consideration in local
                                                                         evaluation processes. Evaluation instruments,
                   0     States nearly Meet Goal                         whether state or locally developed, should be
                                                                         structured so as to preclude a teacher from re-
                                                                         ceiving a satisfactory rating if found ineffective
                   11    States Partly Meet Goal                         in the classroom.
                         Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
                         Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,     2. Evaluation instruments should require class-
                         North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah                  room observations that focus on and document
                                                                         the effectiveness of instruction.
                   22    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                         Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
                         Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,          3. Teacher evaluations should consider objective
                         Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,             evidence of student learning, including not only
                         Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, nevada,          standardized test scores, but also classroom-
                         New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,       based artifacts such as tests, quizzes and stu-
                         Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin            dent work.

                   14    States Do not Meet Goal                      rationale
                         Arkansas, District of Columbia, Idaho,
                         Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire,          See appendix for detailed rationale.
                         New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode        n   Teachers should be judged primarily by their
                         Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming           impact on students.
                                                                      SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                          Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                          available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




70 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
area 3: Goal b Nevada analysis

    State Meets a Small Part of Goal


analySiS                                                    recoMMendation
Nevada does not require instructional effectiveness to be   Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. Nevada
the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation.       is commended for requiring classroom observation, but
Nevada requires that all teachers be observed in the        it should consider revising its policy to require local
classroom and that teacher evaluations include the fol-     districts to use evidence of student learning garnered
lowing: an evaluation of classroom management skills,       through objective measures such as standardized test
a review of lesson plans and work logs, an evaluation of    results, in addition to subjective measures, as the pre-
whether the curriculum taught aligns with content and       ponderant criterion of teacher evaluations. The state
performance standards and an evaluation of whether the      should also ensure that evaluation instruments do not
teacher is addressing the needs of students.                permit teachers found ineffective in the classroom to
                                                            receive satisfactory ratings.
Unfortunately, Nevada prohibits the use of data
from its state data system for the purpose of teacher       Furthermore, the state should end its prohibition on using
evaluations.                                                data from the state data system for teacher evaluations.
                                                            Nevada places an unnecessary burden on its districts to
SuPPorting reSearch                                         create their own data systems rather than permitting
Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 391.3125 and 386.650          them to use statewide data as part of the evidence of
                                                            teacher performance.




                                                            nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                            Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




                                                                                 nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 71
                                                                                                                 Nevada
Figure 60




                                                                             res o lude
                                                   ude




                                                                                                       uati rion e
                                                                                                                 for
                                                                                                  eval crite e th
                                                                  earn easu inc
                                         rvati incl




                                                                                  f
Do states consider




                                                                                          teac onder arning e of
                                                             ent l ive m on to




                                                                                              her ant to b
                                     obse tion to
                                              on




                                                                                           prepdent leevidenc
classroom effectiveness




                                                                                                           on
                                                         stud objectevaluati
                              room alua




                                                                      ing
as part of teacher                                                                                                              examples of Best Practice




                         classuires ev




                                                                                            stu quires
                                                          any uires
evaluations?
                                                                                                                       florida explicitly requires teacher evaluations to




                                                           req




                                                                                             re
                          req
                                                                                                                       be based primarily on evidence of student learning.
  alabama
  alaska
                                                                                                                       The state requires evaluations to rely on classroom
  arizona                                                                                                              observations as well as objective measures of stu-
  arkansas                                                                                                             dent learning, including state assessment data.
  california                                                                                                           South carolina, tennessee and texas also structure
  colorado                                                                                                             their formal evaluations so that teachers cannot get
  connecticut                                                                                                          an overall satisfactory rating unless they also get a
  Delaware                                                                                                             satisfactory rating on classroom effectiveness
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia
  hawaii
                                                                                                                         Figure 61
  idaho
  illinois                                                                                                               Sources of objective evidence of
  indiana                                                                                                                student learning
  iowa
                                                                                                                             Many educators struggle to identify possible
  kansas
                                                                                                                             sources of objective student data. here are
  kentucky
                                                                                                                             some examples:
  louisiana1
  Maine                                                                                                                      n Standardized test scores
  Maryland                                                                                                                   n Periodic diagnostic assessments
  Massachusetts                                                                                                              n Benchmark assessments that show
  Michigan                                                                                                                     student growth
  Minnesota2                                                                                                                 n artifacts of student work connected
  Mississippi                                                                                                                  to specific student learning standards
  Missouri                                                                                                                     that are randomly selected for review
  Montana                                                                                                                      by the principal or senior faculty, scored
  nebraska                                                                                                                     using rubrics and descriptors
  Nevada                                                                                                                     n examples of typical assignments,
  new hampshire                                                                                                                assessed for their quality and rigor
  new Jersey                                                                                                                 n Periodic checks on progress with the
  new Mexico                                                                                                                   curriculum coupled with evidence of
  new york                                                                                                                     student mastery of the curriculum from
  north carolina                                                                                                               quizzes, tests and exams
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia                                                                                                        Figure 60
                                                                                                                        1 Louisiana has an optional teacher evaluation system that does make
  Wisconsin                                                                                                               explicit the need to include objective measures of student learning as
  Wyoming                                                                                                                 part of the teacher evaluation.
                                                                                                                       2 Minnesota has implemented an optional teacher evaluation system
                           30                                16                              4                           based on evidence of student learning as measured by classroom
                                                                                                                         observations and objective measures, such as student achievement data.
Figure 62




                                                                                                                         trum cally ut
                                          ent te-




                                                                    t ap t or




                                                                                                                    d ins ve lo ce b
                                                        tate alen men e-
                                                                             ed
                                      trum e sta



                                                    by s l equiv instru e stat
Do states direct how




                                                                        prov




                                                                                                                lope ppro uidan
                                                                                                    ents




                                                                                                                              ents
                                                                                                trum lly




                                                                                                                                                              t
                                                                                                                                                           men
                                 d ins st us




                                                                                           d ins loca




                                                                                                                                                       stru n
                                                     loca elopedmust us
teachers should be




                                                                                                                                                  on in ole i
                                                                                                           deves not avides g
                            lope s mu




                                                                                       lope oves




                                                                                                                                             uati no r
evaluated?




                                                                                  devete appr
                                                      dev tricts
                       devedistrict




                                                                                                            doe te pro




                                                                                                                                         eval te has
                                                       Dis




                                                                                                             Sta
                                                                                   Sta




                                                                                                                                          Sta
                        all
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia                                                                                                                           1


Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana                                                                                                                                        1


nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island                                                                                                                                   1


South carolina
South Dakota                                                                                                                                   1


tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
                                                                                                                                                                  Figure 62
                          9                              3                          2                        17                           20                       1 The state has no policy regarding any aspect of
                                                                                                                                                                     teacher evaluations.
                                                      area 3: identifying effective Teachers
                                                              Goal c – Frequency of evaluations
                         The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers and multiple
                                                                 evaluations of all new teachers.

                                                                      goal components
             Figure 63
                                                                      (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in Frequency of                    states’ rating for the goal.)
             Evaluations
                                                                      1. The state should require that all nonproba-
                   1     best Practice State                             tionary teachers receive a formal evaluation
                         Oklahoma
                                                                         annually.
                   5     States Meet Goal
                         Idaho, nevada, New Jersey, North             2. The state should require that all new, nonper-
                         Dakota, Washington                              manent teachers receive a minimum of two
                                                                         formal evaluations annually. At least one evalu-
                   4     States nearly Meet Goal                         ation should occur during the first half of the
                         Arizona, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wyoming        school year.

                   14    States Partly Meet Goal                      rationale
                         Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
                         Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,             See appendix for detailed rationale.
                         Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,        n   Annual evaluations are standard practice in
                         South Carolina, West Virginia
                                                                          most professional jobs.
                   6     States Meet a Small Part of Goal             n   Evaluations are especially important for new
                         Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri,                    teachers.
                         North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah
                                                                      SuPPorting reSearch
                   21    States Do not Meet Goal                          Research citations to support this goal are avail-
                         Alaska, California, Colorado,                    able at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                         District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,
                         Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
                         Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,
                         New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island,
                         South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
                         Wisconsin




74 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
area 3: Goal c Nevada analysis

    State Meets Goal


analySiS                                                  recoMMendation
Nevada requires that new teachers be evaluated three      Nevada meets this goal. The state is commended for
times a year. A conference and written evaluation for a   requiring an efficient method to assess new teacher
probationary teacher must be concluded no later than      performance in the classroom early in the year and
December 1, February 1 and April 1 of each school year    address an unsatisfactory performance with a plan for
of the probationary period.                               improvement. The state is also commended for requiring
Nonprobationary teachers in Nevada are required to be     that nonprobationary teachers be evaluated annually.
evaluated annually.

SuPPorting reSearch                                       nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada Statute 391.3125                                   Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




                                                                              nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 75
                                                                                                              Nevada
Figure 64

Do states require districts to evaluate all
veteran teachers each year?
                                                                              examples of Best Practice

                                                                    oklahoma not only requires that new teachers be
                          yes       no
                                                                    evaluated twice a year, but it also articulates that the
  alabama
  alaska1
                                                                    first evaluation must be completed by November 15.
  arizona                                                           This allows new teacher performance to be assessed
  arkansas                                                          early in the year with an unsatisfactory performance
  california                                                        addressed by an improvement plan. Oklahoma also
  colorado                                                          requires that nonprobationary teachers are evalu-
  connecticut                                                       ated annually.
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia                                                           Figure 65
  hawaii                                                            Do states require districts to evaluate all
  idaho                                                             veteran teachers each year?
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
                                                                                                            36
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland                                                                 Nevada
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota2                                                                                15
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
                                                                                             yes             no
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina3
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas4
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia                                    Figure 64
                                               1 Teachers in Alaska who exceed performance standards can waive annual
  Washington                                     evaluation; they are evaluated every two years.
  West Virginia                               2 Minnesota requires multiple evaluations per year for teachers who
  Wisconsin                                     participate in the optional QComp program.
  Wyoming                                     3 North Carolina allows districts to grant waivers to its annual evaluation
                                                requirement.
                          15        36        4 Texas’s annual evaluation may be waived for teachers rated proficient on
                                                most recent evaluation.
                                                                              Figure 68

                                                                              How many times do
Figure 66                                                                     states require districts to




                                                                                                                                                    es
                                                                                                                    d
                                                                              evaluate a new teacher




                                                                                                                                               e tim
                                                                                                                esse
How many times do states require districts to




                                                                                                            addr
                                                                              during a school year?




                                                                                                                                            mor
evaluate a new teacher during a school year?




                                                                                                                                      es
                                                                                                                             e
                                                                                                                        1 tim



                                                                                                                                 2 tim



                                                                                                                                           3 or
                                                                                                        not
                                                                                alabama1
                         18                                                     alaska
                                        14                                      arizona
                                                                                arkansas2
          9                                                     Nevada
                                                                                california
                                                        10                      colorado
                                                                                connecticut
                                                                                Delaware3
       not                 1              2         3 or more                   District of columbia
     addressed           time           times         times                     Florida
                                                                                Georgia
                                                                                hawaii
                                                                                idaho
Figure 67
                                                                                illinois
Do states require districts to evaluate new                                     indiana
teachers early in the school year?                                              iowa
                                                                                kansas
                                                                                kentucky1
                                 25                                             louisiana
 Nevada                                                                         Maine
                                                                                Maryland
                                                                                Massachusetts
                 17                               9
                                                                                Michigan
                                                                                Minnesota
                                                                                Mississippi
                                                                                Missouri1
                                                                                Montana
                 yes1             no        evaluation                          nebraska
                                            frequency                           Nevada
                                          not addressed2                        new hampshire
1 Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,      new Jersey
  Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South             new Mexico
  Carolina, Washington, West Virginia
                                                                                new york
2 District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire,
  Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont                                           north carolina1
                                                                                north Dakota
                                                                                ohio
                                                                                oklahoma
                                                                                oregon
                                                                                Pennsylvania
                                                                                rhode island
                                                                                South carolina
                                                                                South Dakota
                                                                                tennessee1
                                                                                texas
                                                                                Utah
                                                                                Vermont
                                                                                Virginia
                        Figure 68
                         1 State requires multiple observations followed by     Washington3
                           post-observation conferences.                        West Virginia1
                        2 The state’s mentoring program requires multiple       Wisconsin4
                          observations followed by formative feedback.
                                                                                Wyoming
                        3 State requires two observations followed by
                          post-observation conferences.                                                 9               18       14        10
                        4 Only applies to first-year teachers
                                                        area 3: identifying effective Teachers
                                                                                              Goal D – tenure
                                         The state should require that tenure decisions be meaningful.


                                                                           goal components
             Figure 69
                                                                           (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring on Tenure                               states’ rating for the goal.)

                   0     best Practice States                              1. A teacher should be eligible for tenure after a
                                                                              certain number of years of service, but tenure
                   0     States Meet Goal                                     should not be granted automatically at that
                                                                              juncture.
                   0     States nearly Meet Goal

                   0     States Partly Meet Goal                           2. The state should articulate a process, such as a
                                                                              hearing, that local districts must administer in
                   11    States Meet a Small Part of Goal                     considering the evidence and deciding whether
                         Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,      a teacher should receive tenure.
                         Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico,
                         North Carolina, Ohio                              3. Evidence of effectiveness should be the prepon-
                                                                              derant criterion in tenure decisions.
                   40    States Do not Meet Goal
                         Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
                                                                           4. The minimum years of service needed to achieve
                         Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
                                                                              tenure should allow sufficient data to be accu-
                         Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
                                                                              mulated on which to base tenure decisions; five
                         Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
                                                                              years is the ideal minimum.
                         Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, nevada,
                         New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
                         York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,             rationale
                         Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
                                                                               See appendix for detailed rationale.
                         South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
                         Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,     n   Tenure should be a significant and consequen-
                         Wisconsin, Wyoming                                    tial milestone in a teacher’s career.
                                                                           SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                               Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                               available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




78 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
area 3: Goal D Nevada analysis

    State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                      minimum probationary period for tenure to five years,
Nevada does not require any process to ensure that            which would allow for the accumulation of sufficient
tenure decisions are meaningful.                              data on teacher effectiveness to support meaningful
Nevada has a two-year probationary period for new             tenure decisions. Although it is appropriate for teachers
teachers, but first-year teachers with three consecutive      to achieve tenure after a certain number of years, tenure
satisfactory evaluations may qualify for tenure at the        should not automatically be granted at this juncture. To
end of their first year. There is no indication that at the   justify this leap in professional standing, most notably a
conclusion of this period any additional process evalu-       tremendous advantage in due process, the state should
ating cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness is         identify a process, such as a hearing, that local districts
required for tenure. The awarding of tenure appears to        would be required to administer, where the cumulative
be virtually automatic.                                       evidence of teacher effectiveness would be considered
                                                              for each teacher and a determination made of whether
SuPPorting reSearch                                           to award tenure. Teacher effectiveness in the classroom,
Nevada Revised Statute 391.3197                               rather than years of experience, should be the prepon-
                                                              derant criterion in tenure decisions.


recoMMendation
Nevada does not meet this goal. The awarding of ten-          nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
ure is a milestone in every teacher’s career and should       Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
be afforded the consideration it deserves, regardless of
whether the state is bestowing a lifetime or limited-
term position. The state should consider extending the




                                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 79
                                                                                                                   Nevada
Figure 70

How long before a
teacher earns tenure?
                                                                                                                  examples of Best Practice




                             olicy




                                                  ars

                                                            ars

                                                                      ars

                                                                                ars

                                                                                          ars

                                                                                                    ars
                                         ar
                                                                                                          Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any




                         no P

                                     1 ye

                                              2 ye

                                                        3 ye

                                                                  4 ye

                                                                            5 ye

                                                                                      6 ye

                                                                                                7 ye
                                                                                                          state’s policy in this area. All states need
  alabama                                                                                                 to improve how tenure is awarded, but four
  alaska                                                                                                  states have policies that are initial steps in
  arizona                                                                                                 the right direction. iowa and new Mexico
  arkansas                                                                                                require the consideration of some evi-
  california                                                                                              dence of teacher performance when making
  colorado                                                                                                tenure decisions, although it is not the
  connecticut                                                                                             preponderant criterion. Minnesota requires
  Delaware                                                                                                local school boards to consult with peer re-
  District of columbia                                                                                    view committees that evaluate probation-
  Florida                                                                                                 ary teachers, but there is no requirement
  Georgia                                                                                                 that teacher effectiveness must be consid-
  hawaii                                                                                                  ered. New policy in north carolina requires
  idaho                                                                                                   teachers to achieve a minimum “proficient”
  illinois                                                                                                rating on all five of the state’s professional
  indiana                                                                                                 teaching standards on their annual evalua-
  iowa
                                                                                                          tions in order to be recommended for tenure.
                                                                                                          Regrettably, evidence of student learning is not
  kansas
                                                                                                          the preponderant criterion in the evaluation.
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine1
  Maryland
                                                                                                          Figure 71
  Massachusetts
  Michigan                                                                                                How are tenure decisions made?
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri                                                                                                                                         47
  Montana
  nebraska                                                                                                                        Nevada
  Nevada2
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon                                                                                                                    4
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina                                                                                                    consideration of             Virtually
                                                                                                                    some evidence1             automatically
  South Dakota
  tennessee
                                                                                                          1 Iowa, New Mexico and North Carolina require some
  texas                                                                                                     evidence of teacher performance, although evidence
  Utah                                                                                                      of student learning is not the preponderant criterion.
                                                                                                            Minnesota requires a peer review process, but does not
  Vermont                                                                                                   specify that the review include classroom effectiveness.
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming                                                                                                 Figure 70
                                                                                                           1 The probationary period must not exceed two years.
                         1           2        8         32        5          2        0         1         2 New teachers with three consecutive satisfactory
                                                                                                            evaluations may qualify for tenure after one year.
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal e – licensure advancement
The state should ensure that licensure advancement is based on
evidence of effectiveness.

goal components
                                                      Figure 72
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                      How States are Faring on Licensure Advancement

1. The state should base advancement from a pro-            1     best Practice State
   bationary to a nonprobationary license on evi-                 New Mexico
   dence of classroom effectiveness.
                                                            0     States Meet Goal
2. The state should not require teachers to fulfill         0     States nearly Meet Goal
   general, nonspecific coursework requirements
   to advance from a probationary to a nonproba-            14    States Partly Meet Goal
   tionary license.                                               Arkansas, California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
                                                                  Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio,
3. The state should not require teachers to have an               South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
   advanced degree as a condition of professional                 Washington, Wisconsin
   licensure.
                                                            13    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                  Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
rationale
                                                                  Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                          New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
                                                                  Rhode Island
n   The reason for probationary licensure should be
    to determine teacher effectiveness.                     23    States Do not Meet Goal
n   Most state requirements for achieving per-                    Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut Delaware,
    manent certification have not been shown to                   District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
    impact teacher effectiveness.                                 Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
                                                                  Missouri, Montana, nevada, New York,
SuPPorting reSearch                                               North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
    Research citations to support this goal are                   South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia,
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.                     Wyoming




                                                                                 nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 81
                                                                                                                 Nevada
          area 3: Goal e Nevada analysis

              State Does not Meet Goal


          analySiS                                                    recoMMendation
          Nevada’s requirements for licensure renewal include         Nevada does not meet this goal. The state’s licensure
          factors that have not been shown to advance teacher         requirements are not based on factors that measure or
          effectiveness.                                              advance teacher effectiveness. While targeted require-
          Nevada employs a single-tier certification, so new          ments may potentially expand teacher knowledge and
          teachers apply for the appropriate certificate (generally   improve teacher practice, general, nonspecific course-
          either Elementary or Secondary), and then, rather than      work requirements merely call for teachers to complete
          advancing to another level, they renew. The require-        a certain amount of seat time. These vague require-
          ment for renewal is completion of six credits.              ments clearly do not correlate with teacher effective-
                                                                      ness and should be clarified for specificity. The state
          SuPPorting reSearch                                         should require evidence of effectiveness to be a factor
          Nevada Statute NRS 391.031                                  in determining whether teachers advance to the next
                                                                      licensure level.
          Renewal Requirements http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/
          GuidelinesRequirements_Renewals.htm

                                                                      nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                                      Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




82 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
Figure 73




                                              ness


                                                                      her



                                                                      of
Do states require teachers to




                                         ctive


                                                                 teac



                                                                  nce
                                                       ness evide
                                     effe


                                                       ance e of
show evidence of effectiveness
                                                                                    examples of Best Practice




                                                   orm enc
                                        of




                                                  ctive ant
before conferring professional




                                    nce


                                              perfme evid



                                              effe onder
                                vide
licensure?                                                                  In addition to three years’ teaching experience and




                                               Prep
                            no e



                                                So
                                                                            completing the mentoring requirement, new Mexico
  alabama                                                                   requires new teachers to submit a professional develop-
  alaska
                                                                            ment dossier to advance from the probationary to the
  arizona
                                                                            nonprobationary certificate. The dossier is divided into
  arkansas
                                                                            five strands, including evidence of teacher effectiveness
  california
  colorado                                                                  and evidence of student learning, and teachers must
  connecticut                                                               meet or exceed the standards in all strands to advance.
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida                                                                   Figure 74
  Georgia
                                                                            Do states require teachers to earn
  hawaii
                                                                            advanced degrees before conferring
  idaho                                                                     professional licensure?
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky                                                                                               Nevada
                                                                                                                          35
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
                                                                                                        11
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
                                                                                        5
  Montana
  nebraska                                                                       yes, required  required                    no
  Nevada                                                                        for mandatory for optional
  new hampshire                                                                  professional  advanced
                                                                                    license1    license2
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
                                                                            1 Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Oregon all
  new york                                                                    require a master’s degree or coursework equivalent to a
  north carolina                                                              master’s degree.

  north Dakota                                                              2 Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana,
  ohio                                                                        Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming

                            35                 15            1
                                                Figure 75
                                                Do states require teachers to take additional,
                                                nonspecific coursework before conferring
                                                professional licensure?


                                                                                       28
                                                        Nevada



                                                                        23



                                                                        yes1            no

                                               1 Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky,
                                                 Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
                                                 Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
                                                 Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming




84 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal F – equitable Distribution
The state should contribute to the equitable distribution of teacher talent among
schools in its districts by means of good reporting.

goal components
                                                        Figure 76
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                        How States are Faring on Equitable Distribution

The state should make the following data publicly             0     best Practice States
available:
1. An index for each school that includes factors
                                                              0     States Meet Goal
   associated with teacher quality, such as:                  0     States nearly Meet Goal
   n■ teachers’ average SAT or ACT scores;

   n■ the percentage of teachers failing basic skills         6     States Partly Meet Goal
      licensure test at least once;                                 Connecticut, New Jersey, New York,
   n■ the percentage of teachers on emergency                       North Carolina, Rhode Island,
      credentials;                                                  South Carolina
   n■ average selectivity of teachers’ undergraduate

      colleges; and                                           34    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
   n■ the percentage of new teachers;
                                                                    Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California,
                                                                    Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
                                                                    Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
2. The percentage of highly qualified teachers,
                                                                    Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
   disaggregated both by individual school and by
                                                                    Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
   teaching area;
                                                                    Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
                                                                    nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
3. The annual teacher absenteeism rate reported
                                                                    South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
   for the previous three years, disaggregated by                   Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
   individual school;
                                                              11    States Do not Meet Goal
4. The average teacher turnover rate for the previous               Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan,
   three years, disaggregated by individual school,                 New Hampshire, North Dakota,
   by district and by reasons that teachers leave.                  Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont,
                                                                    Wyoming
rationale
    See appendix for detailed rationale.
n   Distribution data should show more than
    just teachers’ years of experience and highly
    qualified status.
n   States need to report data at the level of the
    individual school.
SuPPorting reSearch
    Research citations to support this goal are
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.


                                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 85
                                                                                                                   Nevada
          area 3: Goal F Nevada analysis

              State Meets a Small Part of Goal


          analySiS                                                     basic skills licensure tests at least once, the percentage
          Comprehensive reporting may be the state’s most              of teachers on emergency credentials, the selectivity of
          important role for ensuring the equitable distribution of    teachers’ undergraduate colleges and the percentage of
          teachers among schools. Nevada reports little school-        new teachers. School report cards should also include
          level data that can help support the equitable distribu-     teacher turnover rates. These data can also be used to
          tion of teacher talent.                                      address issues of staff quality and stability. Providing
          Nevada does not collect or publicly report most of the       comparative data for schools with similar poverty and
          data recommended by NCTQ. The state does not pro-            minority populations would yield an even more com-
          vide a school-level teacher quality index that demon-        prehensive picture of gaps in the equitable distribution
          strates the academic background of a school’s teachers       of teachers.
          and the ratio of new to veteran teachers. Nevada also
          does not report on teacher turnover rates.
          Nevada does report on the percentage of highly quali-        nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          fied teachers and the average teacher attendance rate.       Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
          Commendably, these data are reported for each school,
          rather than aggregated by district. Nevada’s 2008 Equity
          Plan also includes data comparing teacher experience at
          high- and low-poverty schools.
                                                                         Figure 77
          SuPPorting reSearch                                            Does Nevada publicly report
          Nevada Core Subject Classes Not Taught by Highly               school-level data about teachers?
          Qualified Teachers http://www.nevadareportcard.com/
          Nevada Not Highly Qualified Teachers in low and high           an index for each school that includes
          poverty schools http://www.nevadareportcard.com/               factors associated with teacher quality                         no
          Nevada Teachers Attendance and Waivers                         Percentage of teachers on emergency
          http://www.nevadareportcard.com/                               credentials1                                                    no
          Nevada’s Equity Plan http://www.nde.doe.nv.gov/
          Accountability/NCLB/08_NV_Equity_Plan-on_DOE.pdf
                                                                         Percentage of new teachers1                                     no
                                                                         Percentage of highly qualified teachers
                                                                                                                                         yeS
          recoMMendation                                                 annual turnover rate
          Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. The state                                                                         no
          should expand its data collection and reporting efforts
                                                                         teacher absenteeism rate
          to include other areas that would shine a light on the                                                                        yeS
          distribution of teachers both across and within districts.
          Individual school report cards should include an index       1 Ideally, percentage of new teachers and percentage of teachers on
          of teacher quality with such data as teachers’ average          emergency credentials would be incorporated into a teacher quality index.

          SAT or ACT scores, the percentage of teachers failing




86 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     nevada
Figure 78




                                          qual ssociat l that




                                                            ed
                                                        rs 1


                                                      ualifi
                                                        ed
Do states publicly




                                              ntia 1 n
                               teac tors schoo




                                        rede ers o




                                                   ache




                                                                                     rate
                                                hly q
                                                   ls
report school-level




                                             w te
                                    cy c each




                                                                                 ism
                                              ate
                                               ity
                         with udes fac r each
                                              a




                                          f hig



                                         ver r
                                                                                                    examples of Best Practice




                                                                             ntee
                                         f ne
                              rgen of t
data about teachers?




                           incl index fo




                                     ge o



                                   urno



                                                                         abse
                                    ge o
                                     her

                         eme entage




                               enta
                              enta




                              ual t
                              hers




                                                                     her
                                                                                            No state has an outstanding record when it




                          Perc
                            an




                          Perc




                                                                 teac
                         Perc



                         teac


                         ann
                                                                                            comes to public reporting of teacher data that
  alabama
  alaska                                                                                    can help to ameliorate inequities in teacher
  arizona                                                                                   quality. However, connecticut, new jersey,
  arkansas                                                                                  new york, north carolina, rhode island
  california                                                                                and South carolina report more school-level
  colorado                                                                                  data than other states. Each of these states
  connecticut                                                                               reports four of the five following factors at
  Delaware                                                                                  the school level: the percentage of teachers
  District of columbia                                                                      on emergency credentials, the percentage
  Florida                                                                                   of new teachers, the percentage of highly
  Georgia
                                                                                            qualified teachers, the annual absenteeism
  hawaii
                                                                                            rate and the average teacher turnover rate.
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming
                                                                                            1 Ideally, percentage of new teachers and percentage of
                           0     18     10      39      7         5                            teachers on emergency credentials would be incorporated
                                                                                               into a teacher quality index.
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal a – induction
The state should require effective induction for all new teachers, with special
emphasis on teachers in high-needs schools.

goal components
                                                         Figure 79
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                         How States are Faring on Induction

1. The state should require that new teachers                  1     best Practice State
   receive a high-quality mentoring experience.                      South Carolina

2. The state should ensure that new teachers
                                                               9     States Meet Goal
                                                                     Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky,
   receive mentoring of sufficient frequency and
                                                                     Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
   duration, especially in the first critical weeks of
                                                                     North Carolina, West Virginia
   school.
                                                               15    States nearly Meet Goal
3. Mentors should be carefully selected based on                     California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas,
   evidence of their own classroom effectiveness                     Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
   and subject-matter expertise. Mentors should                      Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma,
   be trained, and their performance as mentors                      Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia
   should be evaluated.
                                                               10    States Partly Meet Goal
4. Induction programs should include only strate-                    Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Maryland,
   gies that can be successfully implemented even                    New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
   in a poorly managed school. Such strategies                       Washington, Wisconsin
   include intensive mentoring, seminars appro-
                                                               7     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
   priate to grade level or subject area, a reduced                  Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
   teaching load and frequent release time to                        North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas
   observe other teachers.
                                                               9     States Do not Meet Goal
rationale                                                            Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia,
                                                                     Minnesota, nevada, New Hampshire,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                             Oregon, Vermont, Wyoming
n   Too many new teachers are left to “sink or
    swim” when they begin teaching.
n   Vague requirements simply to provide
    mentoring are insufficient.
n   New teachers in high-needs schools
    particularly need quality mentoring.
SuPPorting reSearch
    Research citations to support this goal are
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




                                                                                   nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 89
                                                                                                                   Nevada
          area 4: Goal a Nevada analysis

               State Does not Meet Goal


          analySiS                                                   nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
          Nevada does not require a mentoring program or any         Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
          other induction support for its new teachers.


                                                                       Figure 80
          recoMMendation
          Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should             Does Nevada policy articulate the elements
          require that new teachers are provided with a high-
                                                                       of an effective induction program?
          quality mentoring experience. To ensure that provided
          support is meaningful, Nevada should require induction       Mentoring for all new teachers               no
          strategies that can be successfully implemented, even in
          poorly managed schools, such as intensive mentoring,         Mentoring of sufficient frequency
                                                                       and duration                                 no
          seminars appropriate to grade level or subject area, a
          reduced teaching load and/or frequent release time to
                                                                       Mentoring provided at beginning
          observe other teachers.
                                                                       of school year
                                                                                                                    no

                                                                       careful selection of mentors                 no
                                                                       Mentors must be trained                      no
                                                                       Mentors must be evaluated                    no
                                                                       Mentor is compensated                        no
                                                                       Use of a variety of effective
                                                                       induction strategies                         no




90 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
                                                         Figure 82

                                                         Do states have policies that




                                                                                                                  n
                                                                                                              ctio
                                                         articulate the elements of




                                                                                                          indu




                                                                                                                                   ion
      examples of Best Practice                          effective induction?




                                                                                                             k




                                                                                                                               duct
                                                                                              n




                                                                                                          wea
                                                                                          ctio




                                                                                                                          ng in
                                                                                                      ted/
                                                                                       ndu
South carolina requires that all new teachers,




                                                                                   no i




                                                                                                  limi




                                                                                                                      Stro
prior to the start of the school year, be assigned
                                                           alabama
mentors for at least one year. Districts carefully         alaska
select mentors, who must undergo additional train-         arizona
ing, based on experience and similar certifications        arkansas
and grade levels. Adequate release time is mandated        california
by the state so that mentors and new teachers may          colorado
observe each other in the classroom, collaborate on        connecticut
effective teaching techniques and develop professional     Delaware
growth plans. Mentor evaluations are mandatory and         District of columbia
stipends are recommended.                                  Florida
                                                           Georgia
                                                           hawaii
                                                           idaho
  Figure 81                                                illinois
  Do states have policies that articulate the              indiana
  elements of effective induction?                         iowa
                                                           kansas
                                                           kentucky
                                       25                  louisiana
                                                           Maine
                                                           Maryland
                        16                                 Massachusetts
Nevada                                                     Michigan
                                                           Minnesota
                                                           Mississippi
              10                                           Missouri
                                                           Montana
                                                           nebraska
            no       limited / weak     Strong
         induction      induction     induction            Nevada
                                                           new hampshire
                                                           new Jersey
                                                           new Mexico
                                                           new york
                                                           north carolina
                                                           north Dakota
                                                           ohio
                                                           oklahoma
                                                           oregon
                                                           Pennsylvania
                                                           rhode island
                                                           South carolina
                                                           South Dakota
                                                           tennessee
                                                           texas
                                                           Utah
                                                           Vermont
                                                           Virginia
                                                           Washington
                                                           West Virginia
                                                           Wisconsin
                                                           Wyoming

                                                                                   10             16                  25
                                                          area 4: retaining effective Teachers
                                                                                    Goal b – Pay Scales
                   The state should give local districts full authority for pay scales, eliminating
                    potential barriers such as state salary schedules and other regulations that
                                                               control how districts pay teachers.
                                                                        goal components
             Figure 83
                                                                        (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring in Pay Scales                        states’ rating for the goal.)

                   0     best Practice States                           1. While the state may articulate teachers’ start-
                                                                           ing salaries, it should not require districts to
                   0     States Meet Goal                                  adhere to a state-dictated salary schedule that
                                                                           sets minimum pay for every level.
                   1     State nearly Meets Goal
                         Minnesota
                                                                        2. The state should discourage districts from tying
                   30    States Partly Meet Goal                           additional compensation to advanced degrees.
                         Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,            The state should eliminate salary schedules
                         Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida,       that establish higher minimum salaries or other
                         Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland,             requirements to pay more to teachers with
                         Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,                 advanced degrees.
                         Nebraska, nevada, New Hampshire,
                         New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,              3. The state should discourage salary schedules
                         North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,               that imply that teachers with the most expe-
                         South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,                      rience are the most effective. The state should
                         Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming                      eliminate salary schedules that require that the
                                                                           highest steps on the pay scale be determined
                   3     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                           solely by seniority.
                         Illinois, Rhode Island, Texas

                   17    States Do not Meet Goal                        rationale
                         Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
                         Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,              See appendix for detailed rationale.
                         Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,   n   Compensation reform can be accomplished
                         Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,               within the context of local control.
                         Washington, West Virginia
                                                                        n   There is an important difference between a
                                                                            state’s setting the minimum teacher salary and
                                                                            setting a salary schedule.
                                                                        SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                            Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                            available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




92 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 4: Goal b Nevada analysis

     State Partly Meets Goal


analySiS                                                     recoMMendation
Nevada gives local districts the authority for pay scales,   Nevada meets this goal in part. Although the state is
eliminating barriers such as state salary schedules and      commended for not requiring districts to adhere to
other regulations that control how districts pay teach-      a state-dictated salary schedule, it should articulate
ers. Salaries are determined by local districts based on     policies that definitively discourage districts from tying
“the character of the service required.”                     compensation to advanced degrees or assuming teachers
                                                             with the most experience are the most effective. Such
SuPPorting reSearch                                          policies would ensure that the highest steps on the pay
Nevada Revised Statutes 391.160                              scales are not determined solely by seniority.



                                                             nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                             Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




                                                                                  nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 93
                                                                                                                  Nevada
Figure 84

What role does the




                                          ry




                                                              lary




                                                                                   ority
                                      sala
state play in deciding




                                                          m sa
                                                                                                    examples of Best Practice




                              dule um




                                                                         istri auth
teacher pay rates?




                                                       imu
                         sches minim




                                                                              cts
                                                                     to d es full
                                                    min
                                                                                           Unfortunately, no state meets this goal. Twenty-five




                                                                      Giv
                          Set




                                               Sets
                                                                                           states do not require districts to adhere to salary sched-
  alabama
  alaska
                                                                                           ules or minimum salary requirements, giving them full
  arizona                                                                                  control of teacher pay rate. Although no state has
  arkansas                                                                                 articulated a policy that discourages tying compen-
  california                                                                               sation to advanced degrees or basing salary solely on
  colorado1                                                                                years of experience, Minnesota’s Quality Compensa-
  connecticut                                                                              tion for Teachers program is on the right track. Q Comp
  Delaware                                                                                 requirements prevent participating districts’ local salary
  District of columbia                                                                     schedules from tying compensation primarily to factors
  Florida                                                                                  that do not correlate with teacher effectiveness, while
  Georgia
                                                                                           still allowing districts the flexibility to establish their
  hawaii
                                                                                           own pay system and policies.
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa                                                                                        Figure 85
  kansas
                                                                                              What role does the state play in deciding
  kentucky
                                                                                              teacher pay rates?
  louisiana
  Maine                                                                                                                        Nevada
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
                                                                                                          17                                    25
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri                                                                                                                    9
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
                                                                                                    Sets minimum            Sets             Gives full
  new Jersey                                                                                        salary schedule       minimum           authority to
  new Mexico                                                                                                               salary             districts
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island2
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin                                                                                Figure 84
  Wyoming                                                                                   1 Colorado gives districts option of a salary schedule, a performance pay
                                                                                              policy or a combination of both.
                          17                    9                     25                    2 Rhode Island requires that local district salary schedules are based on
                                                                                              years of service, experience and training.
Figure 86

Do states require districts to pay
more to teachers who have earned
advanced degrees?

                         yes     no
  alabama
  alaska
  arizona
  arkansas
  california
  colorado1
  connecticut
  Delaware
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia
  hawaii
  idaho2
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island3
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia                       Figure 86
  Wisconsin                            1 If Colorado districts choose to have salary schedules, one variable must
                                         be teacher’s education.
  Wyoming
                                      2 Idaho refers to “education index” in district-determined schedules.
                         18      33   3 Rhode Island requires local district salary schedules to include teacher
                                        “training.”
                                                          area 4: retaining effective Teachers
                                                                                 Goal c – retention Pay
             The state should support retention pay, such as significant boosts in salary after
                                                    tenure is awarded, for effective teachers.

                                                                             goal components
             Figure 87
                                                                             (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring on Retention Pay                          states’ rating for the goal.)
                   0     best Practice States                                1. The state should encourage districts to provide
                                                                                a significant pay increase to teachers awarded
                   0     States Meet Goal                                       tenure, provided tenure is based on sufficient
                                                                                data to determine effectiveness.
                   0     States nearly Meet Goal

                   0     States Partly Meet Goal                             2. The state should not support longevity bonus-
                                                                                es, which are awarded at the end of teachers’
                   0     States Meet a Small Part of Goal                       careers and do not provide effective retention
                                                                                strategies.
                   51    States Do not Meet Goal
                         Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
                         Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,                    rationale
                         District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
                         Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,         See appendix for detailed rationale.
                         Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,               n   Connecting additional compensation to the
                         Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,                     awarding of tenure would add to its significance
                         Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,               and improve teacher retention.
                         nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
                                                                             SuPPorting reSearch
                         New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
                         North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,                   Research citations to support this goal are
                         Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,             available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                         South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
                         Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
                         Wisconsin, Wyoming                                      examples of Best Practice

                                                                           Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’s
                                                                           policy in this area.




96 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 4: Goal c Nevada analysis

     State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                    recoMMendation
Nevada does not support retention pay for effective         Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
teachers, such as significant boosts in salary after ten-   encourage local districts to provide a significant pay
ure is awarded. It is up to local districts to determine    increase to teachers awarded tenure, provided tenure
salary schedules and/or policies.                           is based on sufficient data to determine effectiveness.
                                                            Offering financial incentives for classroom performance
SuPPorting reSearch                                         is a valuable tool for keeping effective new teachers
Nevada Revised Statutes 391.160                             in the school system, rather than more commonly
                                                            employed incentives such as longevity bonuses, which
                                                            are awarded toward the end of teachers’ careers and are
                                                            not connected to teachers’ effectiveness.



                                                            nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                            Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




                                                                                nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 97
                                                                                                                Nevada
                                                            area 4: retaining effective Teachers
                                Goal D – compensation for Prior Work experience
               The state should encourage districts to provide compensation for related prior
                                                                subject-area work experience.

                                                                            goal components
             Figure 88
                                                                            (The factors considered in determining the
             How States are Faring on Compensation for                      states’ rating for the goal.)
             Prior Work Experience
                                                                            1. The state should encourage districts to com-
                   1     best Practice State                                   pensate new teachers with relevant prior work
                         North Carolina                                        experience through mechanisms such as starting
                                                                               these teachers at an advanced step on the pay
                   1     State Meets Goal
                                                                               scale. Further, the state should not have regula-
                         California
                                                                               tory language that would block such strategies.
                   0     States nearly Meet Goal

                   4     States Partly Meet Goal
                                                                            rationale
                         Delaware, Georgia, Texas, Washington
                                                                                See appendix for detailed rationale.
                   0     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                            n   Districts should be allowed to pay new teachers
                   45    States Do not Meet Goal                                with relevant work experience more than other
                         Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,                    new teachers.
                         Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia,       SuPPorting reSearch
                         Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
                         Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,                    Research citations to support this goal are
                         Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,                     available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                         Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
                         Nebraska, nevada, New Hampshire,
                         New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
                         North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
                         Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
                         South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
                         Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
                         Wisconsin, Wyoming




98 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
     Nevada
area 4: Goal D Nevada analysis

    State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                 recoMMendation
Nevada does not encourage local districts to provide     Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
compensation for related prior subject-area work expe-   encourage local school districts to compensate new
rience. However, the state does not seem to have regu-   teachers with relevant prior work experience through
latory language blocking such strategies.                mechanisms such as starting these new teachers at an
                                                         advanced step on the pay scale.



                                                         nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                         Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




                                                                             nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 99
                                                                                                             Nevada
           Figure 89
                                                                                               examples of Best Practice
           Do states direct districts to compensate
           teachers for related prior work experience?                                   north carolina compensates new teachers with
                                                                                         relevant prior-work experience by awarding them one
                      yes1                                                               year of experience credit for every year of full-time
                                                                 Nevada                  work, after earning a bachelor’s degree, that is related
                                                                                         to their area of licensure and work assignment. One
                                6                                                        year of credit is awarded for every two years of work
                                                                                         experience completed prior to earning a bachelor’s
                                                                                         degree.


                                                             45
                                                                                    no




            1 California, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Washington




100 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal e – Differential Pay
The state should support differential pay for effective teaching in shortage and
high-needs areas.

goal components
                                                            Figure 90
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                            How States are Faring on Differential Pay

1. The state should support differential pay for                  1     best Practice State
   effective teaching in shortage subject areas.                        Georgia

2. The state should support differential pay for                  15    States Meet Goal
   effective teaching in high-needs schools.                            Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
                                                                        Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
3. The state should not have regulatory language                        nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
   that would block differential pay                                    Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming

                                                                  3     States nearly Meet Goal
rationale                                                               Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington

    See appendix for detailed rationale.                          5     States Partly Meet Goal
n   States should take the lead in addressing                           Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Utah,
    chronic shortages and needs.                                        Wisconsin

SuPPorting reSearch                                               9     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
    Research citations to support this goal are available               Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana,
    at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.                                     Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina,
                                                                        South Dakota, Vermont

                                                                  18    States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                        Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
                                                                        District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana,
                                                                        Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
                                                                        Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
                                                                        New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
                                                                        West Virginia




                                                                                      nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 101
                                                                                                                      Nevada
           area 4: Goal e Nevada analysis

                State Meets Goal


           analySiS                                                    recoMMendation
           Nevada supports differential pay by which a teacher         Nevada meets this goal. The state is commended
           can earn additional compensation by teaching certain        for supporting differential pay initiatives to link
           subjects. The state provides that those teaching math-      compensation more closely with district needs and to
           ematics, science, special education, English as a sec-      achieve a more equitable distribution of teachers.
           ond language or those in “other areas of need” may be
           compensated up to an additional $3,500 annually if the
           state superintendent has deemed the subject to be an        nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
           area of need in a school district.                          Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
           Nevada also supports differential pay for those teach-
           ing in high-needs schools. Teachers in “at-risk” schools,
           as determined by the department, are eligible for an
           additional $3,500 per year.
           In addition, teachers who are National Board Certi-
           fied are eligible to receive an annual 5-percent salary
           increase, but this differential pay is not tied to high-
           needs schools or subject-area shortages.

           SuPPorting reSearch
           Nevada Revised Statutes 391.166
           National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
           Nevada Profile http://www.nbpts.org/resources/state_
           local_information/NV




102 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                      Figure 91
                                                                                         high-nEEds                          shortagE
                                                      Do states provide                   schools                          subjEct arEas
                                                      incentives to teach in




                                                                                                                ess




                                                                                                                                                      ess
        examples of Best Practice




                                                                                              ay




                                                                                                                                    ay
                                                      high-needs schools or




                                                                                                            iven




                                                                                                                                                  iven
                                                                                         ial p




                                                                                                                               ial p




                                                                                                                                                                   ort
                                                                                                        forg




                                                                                                                                              forg
                                                                                     rent




                                                                                                                           rent
                                                      shortage subject areas?




                                                                                                                                                                upp
georgia supports differential pay by




                                                                                Diffe




                                                                                                                      Diffe
                                                                                                   loan




                                                                                                                                         loan




                                                                                                                                                            no s
which teachers can earn additional
                                                        alabama
compensation by teaching certain                        alaska
subjects. The state is especially com-                  arizona
mended for its new compensation                         arkansas
strategy for math and science teachers,                 california
which moves teachers along the salary                   colorado
schedule rather than just providing a                   connecticut1
bonus or stipend. The state also sup-                   Delaware
ports differential pay initiatives to link              District of columbia
compensation more closely with dis-                     Florida
                                                        Georgia
trict needs and to achieve a more eq-
                                                        hawaii
uitable distribution of teachers. Geor-
                                                        idaho
gia’s efforts to provide incentives for
                                                        illinois
National Board Certification teachers                   indiana
to work in high-needs schools are also                  iowa
noteworthy.                                             kansas
                                                        kentucky
                                                        louisiana
                                                        Maine
                                                        Maryland2
                                                        Massachusetts
                                                        Michigan
                                                        Minnesota
                                                        Mississippi
                                                        Missouri
                                                        Montana
                                                        nebraska
                                                        Nevada
                                                        new hampshire
                                                        new Jersey
                                                        new Mexico
                                                        new york
                                                        north carolina
                                                        north Dakota
                                                        ohio
                                                        oklahoma
                                                        oregon
                                                        Pennsylvania
                                                        rhode island
                                                        South carolina
                                                        South Dakota3
                                                        tennessee
                                                        texas
Figure 91
 1 Connecticut offers mortgage assistance and
                                                        Utah
   incentives to retired teachers.                      Vermont
2 Maryland offers tuition reimbursement for             Virginia
  retraining in the areas of mathematics and
  science, if the teacher agrees to teach in the
                                                        Washington
  public school system for at least two years           West Virginia
  following certification. It also offers a stipend
  to alternative route candidates who agree to
                                                        Wisconsin
  teach math, science or special education in a         Wyoming
  public school for at least three years.
3 South Dakota offers scholarships and signing                                  21                  8                 20                 9                  18
  bonuses.
                                                           area 4: retaining effective Teachers
                                                                         Goal F – Performance Pay
                The state should support performance pay, but in a manner that recognizes its
                                                   infancy, appropriate uses and limitations.

                                                                         goal components
              Figure 92
                                                                         (The factors considered in determining the
              How States are Faring on Performance Pay                   states’ rating for the goal.)
                    1     best Practice State                            1. The state should support performance pay
                          Tennessee                                         efforts, rewarding teachers for their effective-
                                                                            ness in the classroom.
                    10    States Meet Goal
                          Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota,   2. The state should allow districts flexibility to
                          Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,        define the criteria for performance pay; however,
                          Utah                                              the state should ensure that districts’ criteria are
                                                                            connected to evidence of student achievement.
                    3     States nearly Meet Goal
                          Alaska, California, Oklahoma
                                                                         3. Any performance pay plan should allow for the
                    5     States Partly Meet Goal                           participation of all teachers, not just those with
                          Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,       students who take standardized tests.
                          Missouri
                                                                         rationale
                    0     States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                             See appendix for detailed rationale.
                    32    States Do not Meet Goal
                          Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,      n   Performance pay is an important retention
                          District of Columbia, Georgia,                     strategy.
                          Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,      n   States should set guidelines for districts to
                          Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,                    ensure that plans are fair and sound.
                          Montana, Nebraska, nevada,
                                                                         SuPPorting reSearch
                          New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
                          New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,            Research citations to support this goal are
                          Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,                available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                          Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
                          West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming




104 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
area 4: Goal F Nevada analysis

     State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                        recoMMendation
Nevada does not support performance pay. The state does         Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
not have any policies in place that offer teachers additional   consider awarding teachers for their effectiveness
compensation based on evidence of effectiveness.                by supporting a performance pay plan, which can
                                                                be implemented at either the state or local level.
Nevada’s Equity Plan, revised in August 2008, includes
                                                                However, to ensure its success, the state is encouraged
pilot programs of performance pay for teachers as part
                                                                to proceed with caution when implementing such
of the plan to ensure recruitment and retention of expe-
                                                                a plan, as criteria must be developed with careful
rienced teachers. During the October 2008 Commission
                                                                consideration of the available data and subsequent
on Professional Standards in Education meeting, the
                                                                issues of fairness. The state may want to consider
commission expressed support for the “restoration and
                                                                piloting a performance pay plan in a select number of
continued funding of the pilot program for performance
                                                                school districts. This would provide an opportunity to
pay.” However, no performance pay pilot program has
                                                                discover and correct any limitation in available data or
been authorized in Nevada.
                                                                methodology before implementing the plan on a wider
                                                                scale. Of critical importance is that criteria thoughtfully
SuPPorting reSearch                                             measure classroom performance and connect student
Nevada’s Equity Plan (Revised August 20, 2008)                  achievement to teacher effectiveness.
http://nde.doe.nv.gov/Accountability/NCLB/08_NV_
Equity_Plan-on_DOE.pdf
Nevada Dept of Education Commission on Professional             nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Standards in Education Meeting Minutes                          Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
(October 17, 2008) http://nde.doe.nv.gov/
Commissions/PSC/mtgs/2008/2008-10-17_Minutes_PSC.pdf




                                                                                     nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 105
                                                                                                                     Nevada
Figure 93
                                                                                      charactEristics
Do states support                                                                       oF Program




                                              pay
performance pay?




                                                                             ent ence ance
                                         ance
                                                                                                                          examples of Best Practice




                                                                                           ent




                                                                                                               ers
                                                                         stud to evid erform
                                                                                     evemof
                                                            ance pport
                                      orm




                                                                                                           each
                                                                  pay
                                  perf




                                                                          pay nects p
                                                    perf s not su




                                                                                                      all t
                                                                                 achi
                                                                                                                     tennessee requires differentiated pay plans,




                             orts




                                                                                                    n to
                                                        orm




                                                                           con
                                                     Doe
                         Supp
                                                                                                                     which may include performance pay. If




                                                                                                 ope
  alabama                                                                                                            districts choose to include a performance
  alaska1                                                                                                            pay component, it must be based on
  arizona                                                                                                            student achievement gains and be criterion-
  arkansas                                                                                                           based so that all teachers meeting the
  california2                                                                                                        standard, not just those with students who
  colorado
                                                                                                                     take standardized tests, are eligible for the
  connecticut
                                                                                                                     reward. Although the state does not indicate
  Delaware
                                                                                                                     specific incentive amounts, it requires that
  District of columbia
  Florida                                                                                                            the award be significant enough to make a
  Georgia                                                                                                            difference to teachers.
  hawaii
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio1
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota1
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin                                                                                                          Figure 93
  Wyoming                                                                                                             1 Alaska, Ohio and South Dakota fund pilot programs.
                                                                                                                     2 California only offers incentives to teachers in under-
                         19                         32                   16                      14                    achieving schools.
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal G – Pension Sustainability
The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to funding
teachers’ pension systems.

goal components
                                                       Figure 94
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                       How States are Faring on Pension Sustainability

1. The state should ensure that its pension system           3     best Practice States
   is financially sustainable. The system should not               Delaware, New York, Wisconsin
   have excessive unfunded liabilities or an inap-
   propriately long amortization period.
                                                             4     States Meet Goal
                                                                   District of Columbia, North Carolina,
                                                                   South Dakota, Tennessee
2. Mandatory employee and employer contribu-
   tion rates should not be unreasonably high.               11    States nearly Meet Goal
   Excessively high employee contribution rates                    Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Nebraska,
   reduce teachers’ paychecks, while excessive                     Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
   employer contributions commit district                          Vermont, Washington, Wyoming
   resources that could otherwise be spent on sala-
   ries or incentives.                                       16    States Partly Meet Goal
                                                                   Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
                                                                   California, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas,
rationale                                                          Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                           Missouri, Montana, nevada, New Jersey,
                                                                   Virginia
n   Many states’ pension systems are based on
    promises they cannot afford to keep.                     15    States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n   Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in                   Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
    their careers by overcommitting employer
                                                                   Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
                                                                   New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio,
    resources to retirement benefits.
                                                                   Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
SuPPorting reSearch                                                West Virginia
    Research citations to support this goal are
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.                2     States Do not Meet Goal
                                                                   Indiana, New Mexico




                                                                                 nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 107
                                                                                                                 Nevada
           area 4: Goal G Nevada analysis

                State Partly Meets Goal


           analySiS                                                    recoMMendation
           As of June 30, 2008, the most recent date for which an      Nevada meets this goal in part. The state needs to
           actuarial valuation is available, Nevada’s pension system   ensure that its pension system is financially sustainable.
           for teachers is 76.2 percent funded and calculates its      The state would be better off if its system was over
           annual contributions based on an amortization period        95 percent funded and had an amortization period
           of 30 years. However, it is only meeting 96 percent of      of 30 years or less to allow more protection during
           its annual required contribution, meaning it would take     financial downturns. However, Nevada should consider
           the state more than 30 years to pay off its unfunded        ways to improve its funding level without raising the
           liabilities. Thus, Nevada’s amortization period does not    contributions of school districts that participate in the
           meet the regulatory requirement of 30 years, and its        ERPaid plan.
           funding level is too low, especially considering that it
           was below the conventionally recommended minimum
           funding level of 80 percent before the recent financial     nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
           market downturn. The state’s system is not financially      Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
           sustainable according to actuarial benchmarks.              enhanced our analysis.
           However, Nevada does not commit excessive resources         In addition, Nevada asserted that NCTQ’s analysis uses
           toward its teachers’ retirement system. Local districts     a “conventional recommendation” of an 80 percent
           choose between two funding options--the Employer            funding level to indicate principles, without including
           Pay Contribution Plan (ERPaid) and the Employee/            a citation. Nevada contended that according to the
           Employer Contribution Plan (EES/ERS)--with most             actuarial standards of practice, its system is well-
           districts electing to participate in ERPaid. The current    financed and on target to meet the overall funding
           employer contribution to the ERPaid plan of 21.5            period of 26.5 years.
           percent appears high. However, in place of a direct
           employee contribution, teachers share exactly one-          SuPPorting reSearch
           half of the employer contribution rate through salary       Nevada Revised Statute 286.421(3)
           reduction or by foregoing an equivalent pay raise.
           Teachers and employing school districts negotiate
           which of the two cost-sharing mechanisms they will          laSt Word
           use in their contracts. Within the EES/ERS, teachers        NCTQ’s use of “regulatory requirement” refers to the
           and districts also share equally in the contribution,       Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No.
           each contributing 11.25 percent. The rates for both the     25, which describes the reporting regulations for defined
           ERPaid and EES/ERS are reasonable rates, considering        benefit plans, including using a maximum of a 30-year
           that neither districts nor teachers make additional         amortization period. The GASB statements regarding
           contributions to Social Security.                           pension regulations are currently under review.
                                                                       Nevada did not respond to repeated attempts to verify
           SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                       that its amortization period is in fact 26.5 years. The
           http://www.nvpers.org/public/beneProgs/beneProgs.jsp
                                                                       most recent financial report to which NCTQ had access
           http://www.nvpers.org/public/whatsNew/contribRates.jsp      and used as the basis for the analysis indicates that the
           CAFR of the Public Employees’ Retirement System of          state is not making the required annual contributions to
           Nevada                                                      meet the 26-year period.



108 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
Figure 95
Pension glossary
accrued liability: The value of a pension plan’s promised benefits calculated by an actuary (actuarial valua-
tion), taking into account a set of investment and benefit assumptions to a certain date.

actuarial valuation: In a pension plan, this is the total amount needed to meet promised benefits. A set of
mathematical procedures is used to calculate the value of benefits to be paid, the funds available and the
annual contribution required.

amortization Period: The gradual elimination of a liability, such as a mortgage, in regular payments over a
specified period of time.

Benefit Formula: Formula used to calculate the amount teachers will receive each month after retirement.
The most common formula used is (years of service x final average salary x benefit multiplier). This amount is
divided by 12 to calculate monthly benefits.

Benefit multiplier: Multiplier used in the benefit formula. It, along with years of service, determines the total
percentage of final average salary that a teacher will receive in retirement benefits. In some plans, the multiplier
is not constant, but changes depending upon retirement age and/or years of service.

defined Benefit Plan: Pension plan that promises to pay a specified amount to each person who retires after
a set number of years of service. Employees contribute to them in some cases; in others, all contributions are
made by the employer.

defined contribution Plan: Pension plan in which the level of contributions is fixed at a certain level, while
benefits vary depending on the return from the investments. Employees make contributions into a tax-
deferred account, and employers may or may not make contributions. Defined contribution pension plans, unlike
defined benefit pension plans, give the employee options of where to invest the account, usually among stock,
bond and money market accounts.

lump-sum Withdrawal: Large payment of money received at one time instead of in periodic payments.
Teachers leaving a pension plan may receive a lump-sum distribution of the value of their pension.

Normal cost: The amount necessary to fund retirement benefits for one plan year for an individual or a whole
pension plan.

Pension Wealth: The net present value of a teacher’s expected lifetime retirement benefits.

Purchasing Time: A teacher may make additional contributions to a pension system to increase service credit.
Time may be purchased for a number of reasons, such as professional development leave, previous out-of-state
teaching experience, medical leaves of absence or military service.

Service credit/Years of Service: Accumulated period of time, in years or partial years, for which a teacher
earned compensation subject to contributions.

Supplemental retirement Plan: An optional plan to which teachers may voluntarily make tax-deferred con-
tributions in addition to their mandatory pension plans. Employees are usually able to choose their rate of
contribution up to a maximum set by the IRS; some employers also make contributions. These plans are gener-
ally in the form of 457 and 403(b) programs.

vesting: Right an employee gradually acquires by length of service to receive employer-contributed benefits,
such as payments from a pension fund.

Sources: Barron’s Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms, Seventh Edition; California State Teachers’
Retirement System http://www.calstrs.com/Members/Defined%20Benefit%20Program/glossary.aspx;
Economic Research Institute, http://www.eridlc.com/resources/index.cfm?fuseaction=resource.glossary



                                                                                         nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 109
                                                                                                                         Nevada
Figure 96

Are state pension systems




                                             ed




                                                                   od
                                                           tion ear
financially sustainable?




                                         fund




                                                               peri
                                                      rtiza 30 y
                                                                                examples of Best Practice




                                      0%




                                                  amoximum
                                 ast 8
                                                                        delaware, new york and Wisconsin provide finan-




                            at le




                                                   Ma
                                                                        cially sustainable pension systems without committing
  alabama
  alaska
                                                                        excessive resources. The systems in these states are
  arizona                                                               fully funded, without requiring excessive contributions
  arkansas                                                              from teachers or school districts.
  california
  colorado
  connecticut
                                                                        Figure 97
  Delaware
  District of columbia                                                  Are state pension systems financially
  Florida                                                               sustainable?
  Georgia
  hawaii                                                                                         Nevada
  idaho
  illinois
  indiana                                                                                       24                27
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Missouri                                                                                        yes              no
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
  new hampshire
  new Jersey
  new Mexico
  new york
  north carolina
  north Dakota
  ohio1
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas
  Utah
  Vermont
  Virginia
  Washington
  West Virginia
  Wisconsin
  Wyoming1
                                                                        Figure 96
                            31                     37                    1 According to the most recent valuations, Ohio and Wyoming are
                                                                           79 percent funded.
                                                        Figure 99

                                                        How well funded are
                                                        state pension systems?
Figure 98




                                                                                         %




                                                                                                                   00%
                                                                                     w 60
Real Rate of Return




                                                                                                 9%



                                                                                                          4%
                                                                                             60-7



                                                                                                      80-9



                                                                                                               95-1
                                                                                 belo
The pension system funding levels presented in            alabama
Goal 4-G are based on each state’s individual             alaska
actuarial valuation, which use a series of varying        arizona
assumptions. One of these assumptions con-                arkansas
cerns rate of return, which greatly affects a sys-        california
                                                          colorado
tem’s funding level. If investment returns fall
                                                          connecticut
short of assumptions, the fund will have a defi-
                                                          Delaware
cit; if returns are greater than expected, the fund
                                                          District of columbia
will have a surplus. Higher assumed rates involve         Florida
more risk, while rates closer to inflation (typically     Georgia
in the 3-5 percent range) are safer.                      hawaii
Most state pension funds assume a rate between            idaho
                                                          illinois
7.5 percent and 8.25 percent. A state using a 7.5
                                                          indiana
percent rate will report a lower funding level that
                                                          iowa
if it had used 8.25 percent, even though its liabili-
                                                          kansas
ties remain the same. Many states report that             kentucky
they do meet or exceed an eight percent rate of           louisiana
return over the life of the plan.                         Maine
However, some economists argue that states’               Maryland
assumed rates of return are too high, and should          Massachusetts
                                                          Michigans
instead be closer to four percent. They cau-
                                                          Minnesota
tion that the risk associated with states’ higher
                                                          Mississippi
rates is borne by taxpayers, with the result that
                                                          Missouri
tax rates rise to fund pension deficits. A rate           Montana
closer to four percent would make the vast                nebraska
majority of the nation’s pension systems less             Nevada
than 50 percent funded. In light of the current           new hampshire
market situation, the debate over the rate of             new Jersey
return is particularly timely. With no current con-       new Mexico
sensus by experts or policymakers, NCTQ used              new york
states’ self-reported numbers rather than recal-          north carolina
culate all funding levels based on a standard rate        north Dakota
                                                          ohio
of return. Considering how many states’ systems
                                                          oklahoma
NCTQ found in questionable financial health
                                                          oregon
without using the lower rates some economists
                                                          Pennsylvania
prefer, it is clear this is an issue that demands         rhode island
policymakers’ attention.                                  South carolina
                                                          South Dakota
                                                          tennessee
                                                          texas
                                                          Utah
                                                          Vermont
                                                          Virginia
                                                          Washington
                                                          West Virginia
                                                          Wisconsin
                                                          Wyoming

                                                                                  5          17       18       11
                                                                              Figure 101

                                                                              What are the current employer1 contribution rates to
                                                                              state pension systems?
   Figure 100
                                                                                employer contribution rate
   What is a reasonable rate for pension                                        Social Security (+6.2%)
   contributions?                                                                                            0%   5%   10%   15%   20%   25%

                                                                                alabama
   n 4-7 percent each for teachers and districts in                             alaska
     states participating in Social Security                                    arizona
   n 10-13 percent each for teachers and districts                              arkansas
     in states not participating in Social Security                             california
                                                                                colorado
   Analysts generally agree that workers in their                               connecticut
   20’s with no previous retirement savings should                              Delaware
   save, in addition to Social Security contributions,                          District of columbia
   about 10-15 percent of their gross income in                                 Florida
                                                                                Georgia2
   order to be able to live during retirement on 80
                                                                                hawaii
   percent of the salary they were earning when
                                                                                idaho
   they retired. While the recommended savings
                                                                                illinois
   rate varies with age and existing retirement sav-                            indiana
   ings, NCTQ has used this 10-15 percent bench-                                iowa
   mark as a reasonable rate for its analyses. To                               kansas
   achieve a total savings of 10-15 percent, teacher                            kentucky
   and employer contributions should each be in                                 louisiana
   the range of 4-7 percent. In states where teach-                             Maine
   ers do not participate in Social Security, the total                         Maryland
   recommended retirement savings (teacher plus                                 Massachusetts
   employer contributions) is about 12 percent high-                            Michigan
                                                                                Minnesota
   er, to compensate for the fact that these teachers
                                                                                Mississippi
   will not have Social Security income when they
                                                                                Missouri
   retire. In order to achieve the appropriate level of
                                                                                Montana
   total savings, teacher and employer contributions                            nebraska
   in these states should each be in the range of 10-                           Nevada
   13 percent.                                                                  new hampshire
                                                                                new Jersey
   Sources:                                                                     new Mexico
   http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/plan-                                    new york
   ning/retirement/saving/strategies?cmsid=P-                                   north carolina
   990053&lvl1=planning&lvl2=retirement&                                        north Dakota
                                                                                ohio
                                                                                oklahoma
   https://personal.vanguard.com/us/planningeduca-
                                                                                oregon
   tion/retirement/PEdRetInvHowMuchToSaveContent.
                                                                                Pennsylvania
   jsp#early                                                                    rhode island
                                                                                South carolina
                                                                                South Dakota
                                                                                tennessee
                                                                                texas
                                                                                Utah
                                                                                Vermont
                                                                                Virginia
                                                                                Washington
Figure 101                                                                      West Virginia3
 1 The employer contribution rate includes the contributions of both school     Wisconsin
   districts and state governments, where appropriate.
                                                                                Wyoming
 2 Some school districts in Georgia do not contribute to Social Security.
 3 The employer contribution to the defined benefit plan is 15 percent for
   employees hired prior to July 1, 2005.
                                                                               Figure 103

                                                                               How much do state pension systems require teachers
Figure 102
                                                                               to contribute?
Do states require excessive contributions to                                     employee contribution rate
their pension systems?                                                           Social Security (+6.2%)
                                                                                                              0%   5%   10%   15%   20%   25%
                                                     Nevada                      alabama
                       26                                                        alaska
                                                                                 arizona

                                         25                                      arkansas
                                                                                 california
                                                                                 colorado
                                                                                 connecticut
                                                                                 Delaware1
                                                                                 District of columbia
                                                                                 Florida
                                                                                 Georgia
                         yes              no                                     hawaii
                                                                                 idaho
                                                                                 illinois
                                                                                 indiana
                                                                                 iowa
                                                                                 kansas
                                                                                 kentucky
                                                                                 louisiana
                                                                                 Maine
                                                                                 Maryland
                                                                                 Massachusetts
                                                                                 Michigan2
                                                                                 Minnesota
                                                                                 Mississippi
                                                                                 Missouri
                                                                                 Montana
                                                                                 nebraska
                                                                                 Nevada
                                                                                 new hampshire
                                                                                 new Jersey
                                                                                 new Mexico
                                                                                 new york3
                                                                                 north carolina
                                                                                 north Dakota
                                                                                 ohio
                                                                                 oklahoma
                                                                                 oregon
                                                                                 Pennsylvania
                                                                                 rhode island
                                                                                 South carolina
                                                                                 South Dakota
                                                                                 tennessee
                                                                                 texas
                                                                                 Utah
                                                                                 Vermont
                                                                                 Virginia
Figure 103                                                                       Washington4
 1 There is no employee contribution for income equal to and below $6,000.       West Virginia
2 The rate is 3.4 percent of pay up to $15,000.                                  Wisconsin
3 The rate is 3 percent until 10 years of service, after which there is no       Wyoming
  employee contribution.
4 The rate is 4.26 percent for the defined benefit plan. The rate varies for
  the defined contribution plan with a minimum of 5 percent.
                                                             area 4: retaining effective Teachers
                                                                        Goal h – Pension Flexibility
                                              The state should ensure that pension systems are portable,
                                                                          flexible and fair to all teachers.

                                                                          goal components
              Figure 104
                                                                          (The factors considered in determining the
              How States are Faring on Pension Flexibility                states’ rating for the goal.)
                    0      best Practice States                           1. Participants in the state’s pension system should
                                                                             have the option of a fully portable pension
                    2      States Meet Goal                                  system as their primary pension plan. States
                           Alaska, South Dakota
                                                                             may provide this through a defined contribution
                    4      States nearly Meet Goal                           plan or a defined benefit plan that is formatted
                           California, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia        similar to a cash balance plan.

                    19     States Partly Meet Goal                        2. Participants in the state’s pension system
                           Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida,              should be vested no later than the third year of
                           Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,              employment.
                           Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,
                           New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Vermont,             3. Defined benefit plans should offer the option of
                           Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming                    a lump-sum rollover to a personal retirement
                                                                             account upon employment termination. This
                    14     States Meet a Small Part of Goal                  option at minimum should include employee
                           Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois,
                                                                             contributions and accrued interest at a fair
                           Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
                                                                             interest rate. In addition, withdrawal options from
                           Mississippi, Missouri, New York,
                                                                             either defined benefit or defined contribution
                           North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
                                                                             plans should include funds contributed by the
                           Tennessee
                                                                             employer.
                    12     States Do not Meet Goal
                           Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia,       4. Defined benefit plans should allow participants
                           Massachusetts, Montana, nevada,                   to purchase time for unlimited previous teaching
                           New Hampshire, New Mexico,                        experience at the time of employment. Teachers
                           North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas,              should also be allowed to purchase time for all
                           West Virginia                                     official leaves of absence, such as maternity and
                                                                             paternity leave.


                                                                          rationale
                                                                              See appendix for detailed rationale.
                                                                          n   Anachronistic features of teacher pension plans
                                                                              disadvantage teachers early in their careers.
                                                                          SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                              Research citations to support this goal are available
                                                                              at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.


114 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
area 4: Goal h Nevada analysis

     State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                                       Because the vast majority of teachers in Nevada
Nevada does not offer a fully portable pension plan, such      are enrolled in the ERPaid plan and not making
as a defined contribution plan, as an option for a teacher’s   contributions, they may not withdraw any funds if they
mandatory pension plan. The only mandatory plan                leave the state. Vested teachers will receive their benefit
available to a teacher is a defined benefit plan. Because      payments later, but nonvested teachers who leave
teachers in Nevada do not participate in Social Security,      Nevada will have no retirement savings at all because
defined benefit plans could be a suitable option among         they do not participate in Social Security. In addition,
multiple plans. However, as the sole option, defined           salary increases may have been diminished during their
benefit plans severely disadvantage mobile teachers and        tenure to pay for the pension system.
those who enter the profession later in life.
                                                               The ability to purchase time is important because
Nevada offers two funding methods for its defined benefit      defined benefit plans’ retirement eligibility and benefit
plan: the Employer Pay Contribution Plan (ERPaid) and          payments are often tied to the number of years a teacher
the Employee/Employer Contribution Plan (EES/ERS).             has worked. Nevada’s plan allows vested teachers to
Local districts choose between the two options, with           purchase time up to five years for any reason. This
most districts electing to participate in ERPaid.              provision is a disadvantage to teachers who move to
Vesting affects defined benefit plans’ portability and         Nevada with more than five years of teaching experience.
flexibility because it guarantees a teacher’s eligibility to
receive lifetime monthly benefit payments and be fully         SuPPorting reSearch
entitled to all other additional benefits. When vested         Summary Plan Description for Regular Members http://
teachers stop working in a particular system, they             www.nvpers.org/public/beneProgs/beneProgs.jsp
may leave their funds in the system and later receive
benefits when they reach the defined retirement age, or
they may withdraw some or all of the funds according           recoMMendation
to the plan’s guidelines. Nonvested teachers may only          Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should at
withdraw funds; they may not receive retirement                least offer teachers the option of a fully portable pen-
benefits. Nevada’s defined benefit plan does not vest          sion plan, such as a defined contribution plan. The por-
until year five.                                               tability of such plans is attractive to an increasingly mo-
Only teachers in the EES/ERS plan may withdraw their           bile teacher workforce. If Nevada maintains its defined
funds when they stop teaching in Nevada, and they may          benefit option, it should also consider allowing vesting
only withdraw their contributions plus interest. This          after year three instead of year five.
means that teachers who withdraw their funds accrue            Because purchasing time can be structured as gener-
no benefits beyond what they would have earned had             ally cost neutral to the fund, teachers should be allowed
they simply put their contributions in basic savings           to transfer unlimited time from previous teaching
accounts. Furthermore, teachers who remain in the field        experience, and this purchase should be allowed on
of education but enter another pension plan (such as           the first day of employment in the new school system.
in another state) will find it difficult to purchase the       The state’s plan should also allow teachers to purchase
time equivalent to their prior employment in the new           time, without restrictions, for leaves of absence such as
system because they are not entitled to any employer           parental leave, and payment should be allowed at the
contribution.                                                  time of leave without requiring interest.




                                                                                    nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 115
                                                                                                                    Nevada
           nevada reSPonSe to analySiS                                    laSt Word
           Nevada stated that its system provides the opportunity         The option of being able to choose a defined contribu-
           for all members to purchase up to five years of service        tion plan is inherently better than being mandated into
           credit. This is a portability feature that is designed to be   a defined benefit plan. While defined contribution plans
           applied to all members regardless of profession. In addi-      are not without their risks, the option allows teachers to
           tion, the system is a multiple employer plan that allows       decide for themselves whether or not they find those risks
           complete portability between school districts within           acceptable. As discussed in the rationale for this goal, states
           the state and the university system, as well as other          have a responsibility to educate their employees on their
           educational or public institutions within Nevada.              options and how to invest at different stages in life.
           Nevada also pointed out that its system is one defined         Experiences in other states show that when offered a
           benefit pension system with two contribution plans,            choice between a defined benefit and defined contribu-
           not two separate defined contribution pension plans.           tion plan, at least some of the employees choose the
           (Further detail is provided in Goal 4-G.)                      defined benefit plan. The option of that plan may have
           Concerning the recommendation that Nevada move to              helped recruit them to the job. For example, in Florida,
           a defined contribution plan for increased portability for      25 percent of non-state employees (this includes coun-
           teachers, the state asserted that this recommendation          ty employees, school board members, etc.; the state
           fails to recognize the importance of the defined ben-          does not specifically separate out teachers) with fewer
           efit plan as an incentive to teachers. There have been         than five years of experience elect to participate in the
           several national studies concluding that overall income        defined contribution plan. Florida’s defined contribution
           security in retirement is a desired goal of individuals        plan was only created in 2002, so the cohort with less
           entering the public workforce (including teachers). This       than five years is a good representation of what por-
           is supported by the real world examples of states where        tion of members chose defined contribution when pro-
           teachers (as well as other public workers) have had an         vided with educational materials. Additionally, in some
           opportunity to choose between a defined benefit and            other states that offer a choice, the defined benefit plan
           a defined contribution approach to retirement security         remains the default plan, perhaps inflating estimates of
           (see Florida, West Virginia and Ohio). Overwhelmingly,         “preference” for these plans’ membership. When West
           when provided a choice, the majority of public workers         Virginia allowed teachers to vote for a one-time switch
           choose the defined benefit approach, thus supporting           from their current defined contribution accounts to a
           the concept that retirement income security is of real         defined benefit formula, more than 20 percent did not
           value to these professionals. Matching the incentives          vote to switch, showing again that at least a sizeable por-
           offered to the desires of the population covered under         tion of teachers prefer a defined contribution program.
           the benefits policy of the employer enhances stability         Even if most teachers would opt for a defined benefit
           of the workforce and ultimately provides a higher level        plan, these plans disadvantage teachers who move into
           of service to the public.                                      or out of the state, or enter teaching later in life, both
                                                                          of which are becoming increasingly more common. De-
                                                                          fined contribution plans may provide less than defined
                                                                          benefit plans to those who spend their entire careers in
                                                                          one system, but the payouts to career teachers are at
                                                                          the expense of mobile teachers, career switchers and
                                                                          taxpayers.
                                                                          Portability within Nevada is valuable, but portability
                                                                          across the nation is still needed for many individuals.




116 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
Figure 105




                                                                              on




                                                                                                                       plan r
                                                                                                                   tion fit o
                                                                          buti
                                                            enta d co with
What type of pension




                                             nly




                                                                                                               ribu bene
                                                                l pla ntri
                                                        lem efine plan
                                        lan o




                                                                                                                                                    n
                                                                                                                                                utio
systems do states offer




                                                                                                           cont ned
                                                                     n
                                                   suppional d enefit
                                   fit p




                                                                                                                                      only ntrib
teachers?




                                                                                                       ned defi
                               bene




                                                                                           lan 1




                                                                                                                                planfined co
                                                    opt fined b




                                                                                                   defioice of
                                                                                      rid p
                           ned



                                                     De




                                                                                   hyb
                       Defi




                                                                                                                                 De
                                                                                                    ch
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california                                                                              2

colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana                                                                                 2

iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
                                                                                                           3
ohio
oklahoma
oregon                                                                                  2

Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina                                                                                             2

South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
                                                                                                                                                        1 A hybrid plan has components of both
Washington                                                                              4
                                                                                                                                                          a defined benefit plan and a defined
West Virginia                                                                                                                                             contribution plan.
Wisconsin                                                                                                                                               2 Supplemental defined contribution
                                                                                                                                                          plan also offered.
Wyoming
                                                                                                                                                        3 Ohio also offers the option of a hybrid plan.
                       30                             13                           4                  3                            1                    4 Washington offers a choice between a
                                                                                                                                                          defined benefit or hybrid plan.
                 examples of Best Practice                             Figure 106
                                                                       What type of pension systems do states
           alaska provides a fair and flexible defined contri-         offer teachers?
           bution pension plan for all teachers. This plan is also                     Nevada
           highly portable, as teachers are entitled to 100 per-
           cent of employer contributions after five years of
           service. South dakota’s defined benefit plan has some            30
           creative provisions, which makes it more like a defined
           contribution plan. Most notably, teachers are able to
           withdraw 100 percent of their employer contribu-                               13
           tions after three years of service. In addition, florida,
           ohio and South carolina are noteworthy for offering
           teachers a choice between a defined benefit plan and a                                        4              3
           defined contribution plan.                                                                                                 1
                                                                           Defined     Defined    hybrid           choice of Defined
                                                                           benefit benefit plan plan1               defined contribution
                                                                          plan only with defined                   benefit or plan only
                                                                                     contribution                   defined
                                                                                    supplemental                  contribution
                                                                                         plan                         plan

                                                                       1 A hybrid plan has components of both a defined benefit plan and a
                                                                         defined contribution plan




118 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                Figure 108

                                                                                How many years before
 Figure 107                                                                     teachers vest?




                                                                                                               less
 How many years before teachers vest?




                                                                                                                           ars



                                                                                                                                      ars
                                                                                                                  r
                                                                                                             ars o



                                                                                                                       5 ye



                                                                                                                                  9 ye



                                                                                                                                                ears
                                                                                                                                            10 y
                                                                                                         3 ye
                                   Nevada




                                                                                                                      4 to



                                                                                                                                 6 to
                                                                                  alabama
                                                                                  alaska
                                                                                  arizona
                          37                                                      arkansas
                                                                                  california1
                                                                                  colorado
                                                                                  connecticut
                                                                                  Delaware
                                                                                  District of columbia
                                                             9                    Florida2
                                                                                  Georgia
            3                               2                                     hawaii
                                                                                  idaho
                                                                                  illinois
         3 years          4 to 5          6 to 9          10 years                indiana
         or less          years           years
                                                                                  iowa
                                                                                  kansas
                                                                                  kentucky
                                                                                  louisiana
                                                                                  Maine
                                                                                  Maryland
                                                                                  Massachusetts
                                                                                  Michigan
                                                                                  Minnesota
                                                                                  Mississippi
                                                                                  Missouri
                                                                                  Montana
                                                                                  nebraska
                                                                                  Nevada
                                                                                  new hampshire
                                                                                  new Jersey
                                                                                  new Mexico
                                                                                  new york
                                                                                  north carolina
                                                                                  north Dakota
                                                                                  ohio3
                                                                                  oklahoma
                                                                                  oregon4
                                                                                  Pennsylvania
                                                                                  rhode island
                                                                                  South carolina5
Figure 108
 1 California offers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately in          South Dakota
   the defined contribution component and vest in the defined benefit             tennessee
   component after five years.
                                                                                  texas
2 Florida’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year six; teachers vest
  in the state’s defined contribution plan after one year.                        Utah
3 Ohio’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year five; teachers vest in     Vermont
  the state’s defined contribution plan after one year.                           Virginia
4 Oregon offers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately in the           Washington6
  defined contribution component and vest in the defined benefit
  component after five years.                                                     West Virginia
5 South Carolina’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year five;            Wisconsin
  teachers vest immediately in the state’s defined contribution plan.             Wyoming
6 Based on Washington’s Plan 2. The state also offers a hybrid plan in
  which teachers vest immediately in the defined contribution component                                   3           37         2           9
  and vest in the defined benefit component after 10 years.
                                                 Figure 109




                                                                                                                                n
                                                                                                                            utio




                                                                                                                      inte er
                                                                                                                           rest



                                                                                                                           rest
                                                 What funds do states permit




                                                                                                            tion e em ion



                                                                                                            tion yer on
                                                                                                                 plus ploy
                                                                                                                         tion
                                                                                                                       ntrib




                                                                                                       ribu emplo tributi
                                                                                                      tribu f th but




                                                                                                                      inte
                                                                                              n
                                                 teachers to withdraw from




                                                                                                            rest ribu
                                                                                       tion ow




                                                                                                  cond part o contri
                                                                                                                  n co




                                                                                                                 plus
                                                                                                        full con
                                                                                                       inte n cont
                                                                                   ribu their
                                                 their defined benefit plans if




                                                                                                             r ow




                                                                                                   an r own



                                                                                                   andeir own
                                                                              conts than




                                                                                                        r ow
                                                 they leave after five years? 1




                                                                                                        thei




                                                                                                    thei
                                                                                                   thei
                                                                                                  only




                                                                                                    th
                                                                                                  cont
                                                                               les




                                                                                                  plus
                                                 alabama
                                                 alaska2
                                                 arizona
                                                 arkansas
                                                 california
                                                 colorado
                                                 connecticut
                                                 Delaware
                                                 District of columbia
1 States’ withdrawal policies may vary
  depending on teachers’ years of service.       Florida3
  Year five is used as a common point of         Georgia
  comparison.
                                                 hawaii
2 As of July 1, 2006, Alaska only offers a de-
  fined contribution plan to new members,        idaho
  which allows teachers leaving the system       illinois
  after five years to withdraw 100 percent
  of the employer contribution.                  indiana4
3 Since Florida teachers do not contribute       iowa
  to the defined benefit plan, the only funds    kansas
  participants could withdraw upon leaving
  are those made for special circumstances       kentucky
  such as purchasing time. Florida also has      louisiana
  a defined contribution plan, which allows
  teachers with at least one year of service     Maine
  who are leaving the system to withdraw         Maryland
  100 percent of the employer contribution.
                                                 Massachusetts
4 Indiana teachers transfering to another
   governmental retirement plan may also         Michigan
   withdraw the amount necessary to pur-         Minnesota
   chase creditable service in the new plan.
                                                 Mississippi
5 Most teachers in Nevada fund the system
  through salary reductions or forgoing pay      Missouri
  raises, and thus do not have direct contri-    Montana
  butions to withdraw. The small minority
  that are in a contributory system may          nebraska
  withdraw their contributions plus interest.    Nevada5
6 Ohio has two other pension plans. Ohio’s       new hampshire
  defined contribution plan allows teachers
  with at least one year of service who          new Jersey
  are leaving the system to withdraw 100         new Mexico
  percent of the employer contribution.
  Exiting teachers with at least five years      new york
  of experience in Ohio’s combination plan       north carolina
  may withdraw their employee-funded
  defined contribution component, but            north Dakota
  must wait until age 50 to withdraw funds       ohio6
  from the employer-funded defined benefit
  component.                                     oklahoma
7 Oregon only has a hybrid retirement plan,      oregon7
  which allows exiting teachers to withdraw      Pennsylvania
  their contributions plus earnings from
  their defined contribution component;          rhode island
  they still receive the employer-funded         South carolina8
  defined benefit payments at retirement age.
                                                 South Dakota
8 South Carolina also has a defined
  contribution plan, which allows exiting        tennessee
  teachers to withdraw 100 percent of their      texas
  contributions and employer contributions,
  plus interest.                                 Utah9
9 Since Utah teachers do not contribute to       Vermont
  the defined benefit plan, the only funds       Virginia
  participants could withdraw upon leaving
  are those made for special circumstances       Washington10
  such as purchasing time.                       West Virginia
10 Washington also has a hybrid plan, which      Wisconsin
   allows exiting teachers to withdraw their
   contributions plus earnings from their        Wyoming
   defined contribution component; they
   still receive the employer-funded defined                                      3               5      35     5       2
   benefit payments at retirement age.
food for thought                                            Figure 110
                                                            Do states permit teachers to purchase time
West virginia’s cautionary Tale                             for previous teaching experience? 1
Education and individual retirement planning advice                                               Nevada
is a critical aspect of any state’s pension plan, as evi-
denced by the tribulations of West Virginia’s teacher
pension system. In 1991, facing financial troubles,                                       30
West Virginia closed its defined benefit Teachers’
Retirement System (TRS) to new members and
opened the Teachers’ Defined Contribution plan (TDC).                                                        14
However, after widespread dissatisfaction with TDC
account balances, it was closed to new members in                        6
2005, and TRS was reopened. In 2008, the state leg-
islature gave TDC participants a one-time option to
switch their account balances from TDC to TRS in                       no               limited           Unlimited
order to receive retirement payments according to the               purchase           purchase            purchase
defined benefit formula. Over 78 percent of teachers               permitted2          permitted          permitted3

elected to transfer.
                                                               1 Alaska only offers a defined contribution plan; purchase of
While these events may appear to argue against                   time does not apply.
states’ offering defined contribution plans, West              2 Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Tennessee.
Virginia’s experience should be viewed as a caution-           3 Arizona, California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
                                                                 Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina,
ary tale of the need for proper investment educa-                South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin.
tion. The implementation of the defined contribution
plan was not handled well. In fact, some teachers
believe they were so poorly advised that they have
                                                            Figure 111
filed suit against the investment firm managing the
plan. About three-fourths of teachers invested sole-        Do states permit teachers to purchase time
ly in low-yield, low-risk annuities that performed
                                                            for leaves of absence? 1
only slightly better than some savings accounts. For                                              Nevada
example, the Associated Press found that from May
2005 to May 2008, these annuities provided only their                 18
guaranteed 4.5 percent annual return. Over this same
                                                                                         19                  13
time period, the S&P 500 had an average rate of return
of over 7 percent per year.
Defined contribution plans provide teachers flexibil-
ity in their retirement savings, but such plans are not
without risk. States have a responsibility to educate                  no               limited           Unlimited
teachers on their financial options and how to invest at            purchase           purchase            purchase
                                                                   permitted2          permitted          permitted3
different stages in life.

                                                               1 Alaska only offers a defined contribution plan; purchase of
                                                                 time does not apply.
                                                               2 Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine,
                                                                 Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
                                                                 Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
                                                                 and Wisconsin.
                                                               3 Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa,
                                                                 Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
                                                                 Ohio, South Carolina and Utah.




                                                                                     nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 121
                                                                                                                     Nevada
                                                           area 4: retaining effective Teachers
                                                                        Goal i – Pension neutrality
               The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniformly increasing
                                            pension wealth with each additional year of work.

                                                                         goal components
              Figure 112
                                                                         (The factors considered in determining the
              How States are Faring on Pension Neutrality                states’ rating for the goal.)

                                                                         1. The formula that determines pension benefits
                    1      best Practice State
                                                                            should be neutral to the number of years worked.
                           Alaska
                                                                            It should not have a multiplier that increases
                    1      State Meets Goal                                 with years of service or longevity bonuses.
                           Minnesota
                                                                         2. The formula for determining benefits should
                    7      States nearly Meet Goal                          preserve incentives for teachers to continue
                           Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina,             working until conventional retirement ages.
                           Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin                  Eligibility for retirement benefits should be
                                                                            based on age and not years of service.
                    29     States Partly Meet Goal
                           Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,
                           Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,    rationale
                           Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
                           Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, nevada,              See appendix for detailed rationale.
                           New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,        n   It is unfair to all teachers when pension wealth
                           North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,           does not accumulate in a uniform way.
                           South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
                           Vermont, West Virginia                        n   Pension systems affect when teachers decide
                                                                             to retire as they look to maximize their pension
                    1      State Meets a Small Part of Goal                  wealth.
                           Pennsylvania
                                                                         SuPPorting reSearch
                    12     States Do not Meet Goal                           Research citations to support this goal are available
                           Arizona, California, Connecticut,                 at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                           District of Columbia, Iowa, Kentucky,
                           Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,
                           New York, Rhode Island, Wyoming




122 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
area 4: Goal i Nevada analysis

     State Partly Meets Goal


analySiS                                                     recoMMendation
Nevada’s pension system is based on a benefit formula        Nevada meets this goal in part. Although the state is
that is not neutral, meaning that each year of work          commended for using a constant benefit multiplier, it
does not accrue pension wealth in a uniform way until        should consider no longer basing retirement eligibility
members reach Social Security retirement age.                on years of service. This change would result in a pension
To qualify as neutral, a pension formula must not            plan that treats all teachers more equitably, regardless
only utilize a constant benefit multiplier to determine      of where they are in their careers.
retired teachers’ benefits, but it must also rely on an
eligibility calendar based on age, rather than years of
service. In most defined benefit plans, pension wealth       nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
peaks for teachers the year they become eligible for         The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada
retirement, and then it declines every year they work        had no comment on this goal.
beyond eligibility. Plans that base retirement on years
of service create unnecessary peaks, and plans that
allow a low retirement age create incentives to retire
                                                               Figure 113
early. Therefore, plans that base retirement on an age
in line with Social Security are likely to create the most     Does pension wealth in Nevada
uniform accrual of wealth.                                     accumulate uniformly for all teachers?
Nevada’s pension plan utilizes a constant benefit
                                                               benefit formula is determined by a
multiplier of 2.5 percent for service prior to July 1,
                                                               multiplier that does not change based                                 yeS
2001, and a multiplier of 2.67 percent after that date,
                                                               on years of service
regardless of years of service; however, teachers may
retire before standard retirement age based on years of        retirement eligibility is based on age,
service without a reduction in benefits. Teachers with 30      not years of service1                                                 no
years of service may retire at any age, and those with 10
years of service may retire at age 60, while other vested
                                                             1 This only refers to determining retirement eligibility, not retirement benefits.
teachers may not retire until age 65. Therefore, teachers
who begin their careers at age 22 can reach 30 years of
service by age 52, entitling them to 13 additional years
of unreduced retirement benefits beyond what other
teachers would receive who may not retire until age 65.
These provisions may encourage effective teachers to
retire earlier than they might otherwise, and they fail to
treat equally those teachers who enter the system at a
later age and give the same amount of service.

SuPPorting reSearch
http://www.nvpers.org/public/beneProgs/regPlan.pdf




                                                                                          nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 123
                                                                                                                          Nevada
Figure 114




                                                                     duce ay r ed te at a
                                           ntil the tims paid




                                                                                              ng
                                                    65 e of




                                                                         d be eceiv achi
                                                                unre ge 22 m o start t age th
How much do states pay




                                                       t
                                   eme from enefi




                                                                             nefi e
                                                                 at a cher wh iremen
for each teacher that




                              retir teacher nt in b

                                               age




                                                                                 ts
                                                                                                            examples of Best Practice
retires with unreduced




                                                                  tea iest ret
                               per al amou

                                       nt u
benefits at an early age?1




                                                                   earl
                                                                                                   alaska offers a defined contribution pension plan




                                tot
                                                                                                   that is neutral, with pension wealth accumulating in
  alaska2                        –                                      –                          an equal way for all teachers for each year of work.
  Minnesota3                    $0                                     65
                                                                                                   Minnesota offers a defined benefit plan with a formula
  Washington                    $0                                     65
                                                                                                   multiplier that does not change relative to years of ser-
  Maine                      $258,357                                  62
  california                 $310,028                                  62                          vice and does not allow unreduced benefits for retirees
  indiana                    $317,728                                  55                          below age 65.
  new hampshire              $321,326                                  60
  kansas                     $337,385                                  60
  oregon                     $361,536                                  58
                                                                                                   Figure 115
  Wisconsin                  $416,007                                  57
  rhode island               $430,013                                  59                          What kind of multiplier do states use to
  texas                      $443,421                                  60                          calculate retirement benefits?1
  South Dakota               $449,151                                  55                                                                           Nevada
  Michigan                   $468,590                                  52
  tennessee                  $499,973                                  52
  new york                   $517,816                                  55
  connecticut                $520,009                                  57                                                                   35
  Vermont                    $520,655                                  52
  new Jersey                 $525,117                                  55
  Virginia                   $531,068                                  52
  iowa                       $551,428                                  55
  idaho                      $551,743                                  56                                                 15
  north Dakota               $551,743                                  56
  oklahoma                   $551,743                                  56
  Florida                    $557,112                                  52
  Maryland                   $562,308                                  52
  north carolina             $568,555                                  52
  illinois                   $572,010                                  57                                               changes           constant
  South carolina             $577,142                                  50                                               based on
                                                                                                                        years of
  hawaii                     $577,687                                  55                                                service2
  nebraska                   $577,687                                  55
  West Virginia              $577,687                                  55                          Figure 115
  Delaware                   $577,927                                  52                           1 Alaska has a defined contribution plan, which does not have a
  District of columbia       $585,737                                  52                             benefit multiplier.

  Massachusetts4             $594,296                                  57                          2 Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa,
                                                                                                     Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
  Montana                    $600,768                                  47                            New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Wyoming.
  Mississippi                $621,861                                  47
  Georgia                    $624,786                                  52
  Utah                       $624,786                                  52
  alabama                    $625,747                                  47
  Pennsylvania               $650,011                                  57
  Wyoming                    $655,506                                  54                          Figure 114
                                                                                                    1 All calculations are based on a teacher who starts teaching at age 22,
  arkansas                   $681,789                                  50                             earns a starting salary of $35,000 that increases 3 percent per year, and
  ohio5                      $687,265                                  52                             retires at the age when he or she is first eligible for unreduced benefits.
                                                                                                      The calculations use states’ current benefit formulas and do not include
  arizona                    $694,622                                  51                             cost of living increases. The final average salary was calculated as the
  colorado                   $722,108                                  55                             average of the highest three years of salary, even though a few states
                                                                                                      may vary from that standard. Age 65 was used as the point of comparison
  new Mexico                 $730,686                                  47                             for standard retirement age because it is the miminum eligibility age for
  louisiana                  $780,983                                  52                             unreduced Social Security benefits.

  Missouri                   $780,983                                  52                          2 Does not apply to Alaska’s defined contribution plan.

  kentucky                   $791,679                                  49                          3 Minnesota provides unreduced retirement benefits at the age of full
                                                                                                     Social Security benefits or age 66, whichever comes first.
  Nevada                     $834,090                                  52                          4 Massachusetts’s formula has many options for retirement. A teacher
                                                                                                     with 35 years of experience at age 57 would reach the maximum benefit.
                                                                                                   5 Applies only to Ohio’s defined benefit plan.
area 5: exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal a – licensure loopholes
The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure
requirements to continue teaching.

goal components
                                                      Figure 116
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                      How States are Faring on Closing Licensure
                                                      Loopholes
1. Under no circumstances should a state award
   a standard license to a teacher who has not              3      best Practice States
                                                                   Colorado, Mississippi, New Jersey
   passed all required licensing tests.
                                                            6      States Meet Goal
2. If a state finds it necessary to confer condi-                  Arizona, Illinois, nevada, New Mexico,
   tional or provisional licenses under limited and                South Carolina, Virginia
   exceptional circumstances to teachers who have
   not passed the required tests, the state should          9      States nearly Meet Goal
   ensure that requirements are met within one                     Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,
   year.                                                           District of Columbia, Georgia, Massachusetts,
                                                                   North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia
rationale
                                                            2      States Partly Meet Goal
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                           Iowa, Wyoming
n   Teachers who have not passed licensing tests
    may place students at risk.
                                                            3      States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                   Michigan, Vermont, Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch
                                                            28     States Do not Meet Goal
    Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                   Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                                                                   Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
                                                                   Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri,
                                                                   Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
                                                                   New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
                                                                   Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
                                                                   South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
                                                                   Washington




                                                                                  nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 125
                                                                                                                  Nevada
           area 5: Goal a Nevada analysis

                State Meets Goal


           analySiS                                                       recoMMendation
           Nevada allows some new teachers who have not passed            Nevada meets this goal. The state is commended for
           state licensing tests to teach under a provisional nonre-      requiring that all teachers of core academic areas meet
           newable license, which is valid for three years. However,      all licensure requirements as of July 1, 2010.
           state regulations indicate that as of July 1, 2010, the
           superintendent will no longer be allowed to issue pro-
           visional nonrenewable licenses to those candidates who         nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
           have not passed required subject-matter tests and who          Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
           apply for the following certificates: elementary license;
           special teaching license in music, art or special education;
           or secondary license in art, biological science, chemistry,
           English, French, general science, history, mathematics,
           music, physical science, reading, social studies, Spanish,
           speech and drama.

           SuPPorting reSearch
           Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 391.056




126 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                               Figure 118

                                                                               How long can new
                                                                               teachers practice without




                                                                                                                                                  nspe ore
         examples of Best Practice




                                                                                                                                                            d)
                                                                               passing licensing tests?




                                                                                                                                             (or u ars or m
                                                                                                                                                       cifie
                                                                                                                                       ars
                                                                                                                            ar
                                                                                                                ral



                                                                                                                        1 ye



                                                                                                                                   2 ye
                                                                                                            efer
colorado, Mississippi and new jersey require that all




                                                                                                                          o



                                                                                                                                     o


                                                                                                                                              3 ye
                                                                                                        no d



                                                                                                                      Up t



                                                                                                                                 Up t
new teachers must pass all required subject-matter
                                                                                 alabama
tests as a condition of initial licensure.                                       alaska
                                                                                 arizona
                                                                                 arkansas
   Figure 117                                                                    california
                                                                                 colorado
   Do states still award emergency licenses?1
                                                                                 connecticut
  no emergency or                                                                Delaware
 provisional licenses2                           renewable emergency             District of columbia
                                                 or provisional licenses3        Florida
                                                                                 Georgia
                                                                                 hawaii
Nevada                                                                           idaho
                       9                    16                                   illinois
                                                                                 indiana
                                                                                 iowa1
                                                                                 kansas
                                                                                 kentucky
                                                                                 louisiana
                                  24                                             Maine
                                                                                 Maryland
                                                                                 Massachusetts
                                                                                 Michigan
                                                                                 Minnesota
                                                                                 Mississippi
                                     nonrenewable                                Missouri
                                      emergency or                               Montana2
                                   provisional licenses
                                                                                 nebraska2
                                                                                 Nevada3
 1 Not applicable to Montana or Nebraska, which do not require
   subject-matter testing.                                                       new hampshire
 2 Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,     new Jersey
   South Carolina, Virginia                                                      new Mexico
 3 Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan,                        new york
   Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
   Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin                       north carolina
                                                                                 north Dakota
                                                                                 ohio
                                                                                 oklahoma
                                                                                 oregon
                                                                                 Pennsylvania
                                                                                 rhode island
                                                                                 South carolina
                                                                                 South Dakota
                                                                                 tennessee
                                                                                 texas
                                                                                 Utah
                                                                                 Vermont
                                                                                 Virginia
                                                                                 Washington
       Figure 118                                                                West Virginia
        1 Iowa only requires subject-matter testing for elementary teachers.
                                                                                 Wisconsin
        2 Montana and Nebraska do not currently require licensing tests.
                                                                                 Wyoming4
        3 Nevada has no deferral as of 2010.
        4 Wyoming only requires subject-matter testing for elementary and                               9             11         8             21
          social studies teachers.
                                                              area 5: exiting ineffective Teachers
                                                               Goal b – Unsatisfactory evaluations
                     The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory
                    evaluations, including specifying that teachers with multiple unsatisfactory
                                                            evaluations are eligible for dismissal.
                                                                         goal components
              Figure 119
                                                                         (The factors considered in determining the
              How States are Faring on Consequences for                  states’ rating for the goal.)
              Unsatisfactory Evaluations
                                                                         1. The state should require that all teachers who
                                                                            have received a single unsatisfactory evaluation
                    2      best Practice States
                                                                            be placed on an improvement plan -- whether
                           Illinois, Oklahoma
                                                                            or not they have tenure.
                    6      States Meet Goal
                           Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana,         2. The state should require that all teachers who
                           New Mexico, Washington                           receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evalua-
                                                                            tions or two unsatisfactory evaluations within
                    6      States nearly Meet Goal                          five years be formally eligible for dismissal --
                           Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina,       whether or not they have tenure.
                           South Carolina, Texas

                    13     States Partly Meet Goal                       rationale
                           Alabama, Arkansas, California,
                           Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi,         See appendix for detailed rationale.
                           Missouri, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,     n   Negative evaluations should have meaningful
                           Utah, West Virginia                               consequences.
                                                                             Employment status should not determine the
                    1      State Meets a Small Part of Goal
                                                                         n


                           Arizona                                           consequences of a negative evaluation.
                                                                         SuPPorting reSearch
                    23     States Do not Meet Goal
                           District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana,             Research citations to support this goal are
                                                                             available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
                           Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
                           Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
                           Nebraska, nevada, New Hampshire,
                           New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,
                           Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
                           Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming




128 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
area 5: Goal b Nevada analysis

    State Does not Meet Goal


analySiS                                               recoMMendation
Nevada does not have a policy regarding teachers who   Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should adopt a
receive unsatisfactory evaluations.                    policy whereby all teachers who receive a single unsatis-
                                                       factory evaluation are placed on a structured improvement
SuPPorting reSearch                                    plan. Teachers who receive two consecutive, unsatisfactory
NRS 391.3125                                           evaluations or have two unsatisfactory evaluations within
                                                       five years should be formally eligible for dismissal, regard-
                                                       less of whether they have tenure.



                                                       nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                       Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




                                                                             nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 129
                                                                                                             Nevada
Figure 120




                                                            ings



                                                                                          nces
                                                        ting
                                                   ry ra a




                                                  ctor r
                                                       y rat
                                             tisfa l afte
What are the consequences




                                             facto fter




                                                                                      eque
                                        satis lan a




                                        unsa issa
for teachers who receive




                                                                                  cons
                                    iple dism
                                   le un nt p
unsatisfactory evaluations?                                                                              examples of Best Practice




                                                                            lated
                              singproveme




                              multible for




                                                                       rticu
                                                                                                 illinois and oklahoma both require that teachers




                                                                   no a
                               elig
                               im
                                                                                                 who receive unsatisfactory evaluations be placed on
  alabama
  alaska
                                                                                                 improvement plans. Teachers in Illinois are then
  arizona                                                                                        evaluated three times during a 90-day remediation
  arkansas                                                                                       period and are eligible for dismissal if performance
  california                                                                                     remains unsatisfactory. Oklahoma’s improvement plan
  colorado                                                                                       may not exceed two months, and if performance does
  connecticut                                                                                    not improve during that time, teachers are eligible for
  Delaware                                                                                       dismissal.
  District of columbia
  Florida
  Georgia                                                                                        Figure 121
  hawaii1
  idaho                                                                                          Do states specify that all teachers with
  illinois
                                                                                                 multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible
                                                                                                 for dismissal?
  indiana
                                                                                                                            Nevada
  iowa
  kansas
  kentucky2                                                                                                                                   40
  louisiana
  Maine
  Maryland
  Massachusetts
  Michigan
  Minnesota                                                                                                                   11
  Mississippi3
  Missouri
  Montana
  nebraska
  Nevada
                                                                                                                               yes1             no
  new hampshire
  new Jersey                                                                                     1 Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana,
  new Mexico                                                                                       New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington
  new york
  north carolina4
  north Dakota
  ohio
  oklahoma
  oregon
  Pennsylvania
  rhode island
  South carolina5
  South Dakota
  tennessee
  texas                                                                                          Figure 120
                                                                                                  1 Any teacher with an unsatisfactory evaluation is immediately dismissed.
  Utah
                                                                                                 2 Kentucky does require multiple observations the year following an
  Vermont                                                                                          unsatisfactory evaluation.
  Virginia6                                                                                      3 Improvement plans are only used for teachers in identified “Priority
  Washington                                                                                       Schools.” Those same teachers are also eligible for dismissal for multiple
                                                                                                   unsatisfactory evaluations.
  West Virginia
                                                                                                 4 Only teachers in low performing schools can be dismissed after just one
  Wisconsin                                                                                        negative rating.
  Wyoming                                                                                        5 Only teachers on annual contracts are eligible for dismissal after
                                                                                                   unsatisfactory evaluations.
                               25              13                  22                            6 Only probationary teachers can be dismissed following an unsatisfactory
                                                                                                   evaluation.
area 5: exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal c – Dismissal for Poor Performance
The state should ensure that the process for terminating ineffective teachers is
expedient and fair to all parties.

goal components
                                                       Figure 122
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
                                                       How States are Faring in Dismissal for Poor
                                                       Performance
1. A teacher who is terminated for poor perfor-
   mance should have an opportunity to appeal. In
                                                             0      best Practice States
   the interest of both the teacher and the school
   district, the state should ensure this appeal             0      States Meet Goal
   occurs within a reasonable time frame.
                                                             0      States nearly Meet Goal
2. The state should distinguish the process and
   accompanying due process rights for teachers              3      States Partly Meet Goal
   dismissed for classroom ineffectiveness from                     Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin
   the process and accompanying due process
   rights for teachers dismissed or facing license
                                                             4      States Meet a Small Part of Goal
                                                                    District of Columbia, Louisiana, New York,
   revocation for felony or morality violations or
                                                                    North Dakota
   dereliction of duties.
                                                             44     States Do not Meet Goal
rationale                                                           Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
                                                                    California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
    See appendix for detailed rationale.                            Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
n   States need to be explicit that teacher ineffec-                Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
    tiveness is grounds for dismissal.                              Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
                                                                    Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
n   Due process must be efficient and expedited.                    nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
n   Decisions about teachers should be made by                      North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
    those with educational expertise.                               Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
                                                                    South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
SuPPorting reSearch
                                                                    Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia,
    Research citations to support this goal are                     Wyoming
    available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.




                                                                                  nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 131
                                                                                                                  Nevada
           area 5: Goal c Nevada analysis

                State Does not Meet Goal


           analySiS                                                     recoMMendation
           In Nevada, tenured teachers who are terminated for poor      Nevada does not meet this goal. Although the state should
           performance may appeal multiple times. After receiving       provide tenured teachers an opportunity to appeal district
           written notice of dismissal, the teacher has 10 days to      decisions to terminate their contracts, multiple appeals
           file a request for a hearing. The teacher may then file an   should not be permitted, and such an appeal should not be
           additional appeal with the district court. The state does    made in a court of law but before a panel of educators. It
           not specify the time frame for this appeal.                  is in the best interest of both the teacher and the district
           Regrettably, the state also does not distinguish its due     that a conclusion be reached in a reasonable time frame.
           process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective per-   Prolonged appeals tax limited resources and may dissuade
           formance from those facing license revocation for der-       districts from attempting to terminate ineffective teachers.
           eliction of duty or felony and/or morality violations. The   The state should also distinguish the process for dismissing
           process is the same regardless of the grounds for cancel-    ineffective teachers from dismissal or license revocation
           lation, which include inefficiency, immorality, unprofes-    for dereliction of duty or felony and/or morality violations.
           sional conduct, insubordination, neglect of duty, physi-     While teachers should have due process for any termina-
           cal or mental incapacity, felony conviction, inadequate      tion, it is important to differentiate between poor perfor-
           performance, advocating overthrow of the government          mance and issues with far-reaching consequences that
           and dishonesty.                                              could permanently impact a teacher’s right to practice.

           SuPPorting reSearch
           Nevada Revised Statutes 391.312, -317, -3194                 nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
                                                                        Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.




132 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                        Figure 124
                                                                        Do states distinguish due




                                                                                                                                g
                                                                                                                       ess essin
                                                                        process for dismissal for
        examples of Best Practice




                                                                                                                   proc addr
                                                                        classroom ineffectiveness




                                                                                                               due policy
                                                                        from felony or morality
Unfortunately, no state has an exemplary policy that                    violations?




                                                                                                                no
                                                                                                    yes



                                                                                                          no
NCTQ can highlight as “best practice” in this area. Only
                                                                          alabama
florida, new hampshire and Wisconsin ensure that
                                                                          alaska
their processes for terminating ineffective teachers
                                                                          arizona
should be concluded within a reasonable time frame.                       arkansas
Regrettably, even these states do not distinguish due                     california
process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective per-                colorado
formance from those facing license revocation for der-                    connecticut
eliction of duties, or felony and/or morality violations.                 Delaware
                                                                          District of columbia
                                                                          Florida
Figure 123                                                                Georgia
                                                                          hawaii
Do states allow multiple appeals of teacher                               idaho
dismissals?                                                               illinois
                                                                          indiana
                     Nevada
                                                                          iowa
                                                                          kansas
                                                                          kentucky
          38                                                              louisiana
                                                                          Maine
                                                                          Maryland
                                                                          Massachusetts
                                                                          Michigan
                                                                          Minnesota
                                                                          Mississippi
                                          8                               Missouri
                           5                                              Montana
                                                                          nebraska
                                                                          Nevada
           yes            no1             no                              new hampshire
                                     (or unclear)                         new Jersey
                                        policy
                                      addressing                          new Mexico
                                       appeals2                           new york
                                                                          north carolina
 1 District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, Wisconsin      north Dakota
 2 Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, Utah     ohio
                                                                          oklahoma
                                                                          oregon
                                                                          Pennsylvania
                                                                          rhode island
                                                                          South carolina
                                                                          South Dakota
                                                                          tennessee
                                                                          texas
                                                                          Utah
                                                                          Vermont
                                                                          Virginia
                                                                          Washington
                                                                          West Virginia
                                                                          Wisconsin
                                                                          Wyoming

                                                                                                    1     47     3
                                                                                                                                   aPPeNdiX



appendix                                                             focus exclusively on astronomy and fail to give a teacher can-
                                                                     didate an understanding of the basic concepts of physics. Too
                                                                     few states’ requirements distinguish between the value gained
area 1: goal a                                                       from a survey course in American history, such as “From Colonial
                                                                     Times to the Civil War,” and an American history course such as
Admission into Preparation Programs                                  “Woody Guthrie and Folk Narrative in the Great Depression.”
rationale                                                            In addition to the common-sense notion that teachers ought
The most appropriate time for assessing basic skills is              to know the subjects they teach, research supports the benefits
at program entry.                                                    to be gained by teachers being broadly educated. Teachers who
                                                                     are more literate--who possess richer vocabularies--are more
Basic skills tests were not intended to be licensing tests, but
                                                                     likely to be effective. In fact, of all the measurable attributes of
rather to be used at the point of admission into a teacher prepa-
                                                                     a teacher, teacher literacy correlates most consistently with stu-
ration program. These tests generally assess middle school-level
                                                                     dent achievement gains. Some states still require that elemen-
skills, and states should use them as a minimal screening mecha-
                                                                     tary teacher candidates major in elementary education, with no
nism to ensure that teacher preparation programs do not admit
                                                                     expectation that they be broadly educated. Others have regula-
anyone who is not prepared to do college-level work. Admitting
                                                                     tory language that effectively requires the completion of educa-
prospective teachers who have not passed these tests may re-
                                                                     tion coursework instead of liberal arts coursework by mandat-
sult in programs devoting limited time to basic skill remediation
                                                                     ing only teaching methods courses in subject areas without also
rather than preparation for the classroom.
                                                                     requiring content-based coursework in the areas themselves.
Screening candidates at program entry protects the
                                                                     an academic concentration enhances content knowl-
public’s investment.
                                                                     edge and ensures that prospective elementary teach-
Teacher preparation programs that do not screen candidates,          ers take higher level academic coursework.
particularly programs at public institutions that are heavily sub-
                                                                     Few states require prospective elementary teachers to major
sidized by the state, invest considerable taxpayer dollars in the
                                                                     or minor in an academic subject area. Consequently, in most
preparation of individuals who may not be able to successfully
                                                                     states these teachers can meet subject-matter requirements
complete the program and pass the licensing tests required to
                                                                     without taking any advanced-level coursework. At minimum,
become a teacher. Candidates needing additional support should
                                                                     states should require a concentration in an academic area. In
complete remediation prior to program entry, avoiding the pos-
                                                                     addition to deepening subject-matter knowledge in a particu-
sibility of an unsuccessful investment of significant public tax
                                                                     lar area, building this concentration into elementary education
dollars.
                                                                     programs ensures that prospective teachers complete academic
                                                                     coursework on par with peers earning bachelor’s degrees in other
area 1: goal B                                                       areas.
Elementary Teacher Preparation                                       A concentration also provides a fallback for education majors
                                                                     whose programs deem them unready for the classroom. In most
rationale                                                            education programs, virtually all coursework is completed before
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation                 candidates begin student teaching. The stakes are high once stu-
programs provide elementary teachers with a broad                    dent teaching begins: if a candidate cannot pass, he or she can-
liberal arts education.                                              not meet requirements for a major or graduate. This may create a
                                                                     perverse incentive for programs to set low standards for student
Many states’ policies fail to ensure that elementary teacher can-
                                                                     teaching and/or pass candidates whose clinical experience is un-
didates will complete coursework in topics relevant to common
                                                                     satisfactory. If they were required to have at least an academic
topics in elementary grades, specifically topics found in states’
                                                                     concentration, candidates who failed student teaching could still
elementary learning standards. Even when states specify liberal
                                                                     complete a degree with minimal additional coursework.
arts coursework requirements, the regulatory language can be
quite broad, alluding only minimally to conceptual approaches
                                                                     Standards-based programs can work when verified by
such as “quantitative reasoning” or “historical understanding.”
                                                                     testing.
Another common but inadequate approach that states take is
to specify broad curricular areas like “humanities” or “physical     Many states no longer prescribe specific courses or credit hours
sciences.” A humanities course could be a general overview of        as a condition for teacher candidates to qualify for a license. In-
world literature--an excellent course for a prospective elemen-      stead, they require teacher candidates to complete an approved
tary teacher--but it could also be “Introduction to Film Theory.”    program that meets state-specific standards or standards set
Likewise, a physical science course could be an overview of rel-     forth by accrediting bodies--the National Council for Accredita-
evant topics in physics, chemistry, and astronomy, or it could       tion of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Association for Child-

                                                                                               nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 135
                                                                                                                               Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         hood Education International (ACEI)--and leave it at that. The         Subject-area coursework should be taught by arts and
         advantage of this “standards-based” approach is that it grants         sciences faculty.
         greater flexibility to teacher preparation programs regarding pro-
                                                                                Most states do not explicitly require that subject-matter course-
         gram design.
                                                                                work be taught by academics in the field, that is, faculty from
         However, a significant disadvantage is that the standards-based        a university’s college of arts and sciences. While an education
         approach is far more difficult to monitor or enforce. While some       professor who specializes in science education, for instance, is
         programs respond well to the flexibility, others do not. Though        well suited to teach effective methodologies in science instruc-
         the ACEI/NCATE standards may be beneficial, they are too gen-          tion, a scholar in science should provide the foundation work in
         eral for states to rely on in their efforts to ensure adequate sub-    the subject itself.
         ject-matter training. For example, ACEI’s standard for social stud-
                                                                                States cannot leave these decisions entirely to teacher prepara-
         ies requires that elementary teacher candidates be “able to use
                                                                                tion programs because sending teacher candidates to the college
         knowledge, skills and dispositions from social studies to organize
                                                                                of arts and sciences to complete coursework can run counter to
         and provide integrated instruction in grades K-6 for the study
                                                                                programs’ financial interests.
         of major themes, concepts, and modes of inquiry drawn from
         academic fields that address: (1) culture; (2) time, continuity, and
                                                                                Teacher candidates need to be able to “test out” of
         change; (3) people, places, and environment; (4) individual devel-
                                                                                coursework requirements.
         opment and identity; (5) individuals, groups, and institutions; (6)
         power, governance, and authority; (7) production, distribution,        Many elementary teacher candidates will have acquired the
         and consumption; (8) science, technology, and society; (9) global      knowledge needed to teach elementary grades in their high
         connections; and (10) civic ideals and practices.” These broad         school coursework and other experiences. Someone who earned
         concepts do very little to articulate the actual knowledge that        a score of 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement (AP) exam in
         elementary teacher candidates should possess.                          American history does not need to take a general survey course
         Standards are important but essentially meaningless absent rig-        in college but should be eligible to take a more advanced Ameri-
         orous tests to ensure that teacher candidates have met them.           can history course focused on a particular topic. States need to
         Most states that have chosen the standards-based approach              have some process that allows teacher candidates to test out of
         have not implemented such tests. In their absence, verifying           survey requirements.
         that teacher preparation programs are teaching to the standards        A legitimate test-out option would require individual subject-
         requires an exhaustive review process of matching every stan-          matter tests or at least minimum subscores on a general test.
         dard with something taught in a course. This approach is neither       Good policy would also accept equivalent scores from AP and
         practical nor efficient. Tests of broad subject matter are also not    SAT II tests.
         the solution, given that it is possible to pass without necessarily
         demonstrating knowledge in each subject area. For instance, on
         many tests of teacher content knowledge, a passing score is pos-       area 1: goal c
         sible while answering every mathematics question incorrectly.          Teacher Preparation in Reading
         mere alignment with student learning standards is not
                                                                                Instruction
         sufficient.                                                            rationale
         Another growing trend in state policy is to require teacher prep-      reading science has identified five components of
         aration programs to align their instruction with the state’s stu-      effective instruction.
         dent learning standards. In many states, this alignment exercise       Teaching children to read is the most important task teachers
         is the only factor considered in deciding the content to be de-        undertake. Over the past 60 years, scientists from many fields
         livered to elementary teacher candidates. Alignment of teacher         have worked to determine how people learn to read and why
         preparation with student learning standards is an important step       some struggle. This science of reading has led to breakthroughs
         but by no means the only one. For example, a program should            that can dramatically reduce the number of children destined to
         prepare teachers in more than just the content that the state          become functionally illiterate or barely literate adults. By rou-
         expects of its fourth graders. Also critical is moving past align-     tinely applying in the classroom the lessons learned from the
         ment and deciding the broader set of knowledge a teacher needs         scientific findings, most reading failure can be avoided. Estimates
         to have to be able to effectively teach fourth grade. The teacher’s    indicate that the current failure rate of 20 to 30 percent could be
         perspective must be both broader and deeper than what he or            reduced to 2 to 10 percent.
         she will actually teach.
                                                                                Scientific research has shown that there are five essential com-
                                                                                ponents of effective reading instruction: explicit and systematic
                                                                                instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary
                                                                                and comprehension. While elementary teachers need to be well

136 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                                                                    aPPeNdiX


versed in these components, even secondary teachers need at           Most states’ policies do not require preparation in mathematics
least some knowledge of this process, particularly if they work in    of appropriate breadth and depth and specific to the needs of
high-poverty schools.                                                 the elementary teacher. NCTQ’s report “No Common Denomi-
Many states’ policies still do not reflect the strong research con-   nator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics
sensus in reading instruction that has emerged over the last few      by America’s Education Schools” found that only 13 percent of
decades. Many teacher preparation programs, still caught up in        teacher preparation programs in a national sample were provid-
the reading wars, resist teaching scientifically based reading in-    ing high quality preparation in mathematics. Whether through
struction. NCTQ’s report “What Education Schools Aren’t Teach-        standards or coursework requirements, states must ensure that
ing about Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren’t Learn-          their preparation programs graduate only teacher candidates
ing” found that only 15 percent of teacher preparation programs       who are well prepared to teach mathematics.
in a national sample were providing even minimal exposure to
the science of reading. Whether through standards or course-          most state tests offer no assurance that teachers are
work requirements, states must ensure that their preparation          prepared to teach mathematics.
programs graduate only teacher candidates who know how to             Only Massachusetts has developed a rigorous assessment for
teach children to reads.                                              elementary teachers entirely and solely focused on mathemat-
                                                                      ics. Other states rely on subject-matter tests that include some
most current reading tests do not offer assurance that                items (or even a whole section) on mathematics instruction.
teachers know the science of reading.                                 However, since subject-specific passing scores are not required,
A few states, such as Massachusetts and Virginia, have developed      one need not know much mathematics in order to pass. In fact,
strong, stand-alone assessments entirely focused on the science       one might answer every mathematics question incorrectly and
of reading. Other states rely on either pedagogy tests or content     still pass. States need to ensure that it is not possible to pass
tests that include items on reading instruction. However, since       a licensure test that purportedly covers mathematics without
reading instruction is addressed only in one small part of most of    knowing the critical material.
these tests, it is often not necessary to know the science of read-
ing to pass. States need to make sure that a teacher candidate
cannot pass a test that purportedly covers reading instruction        area 1: goal e
without knowing the critical material.                                Middle School Teacher Preparation
                                                                      rationale
area 1: goal d                                                        States must differentiate middle school teacher prep-
                                                                      aration from that of elementary teachers.
Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
                                                                      Middle school grades are critical years of schooling. It is in these
rationale
                                                                      years that far too many students fall through the cracks. How-
required math coursework should be tailored in both                   ever, requirements for the preparation and licensure of middle
design and delivery to the unique needs of the ele-                   school teachers are among the weakest state policies. Too many
mentary teacher.                                                      states fail to distinguish the knowledge and skills needed by
Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire a deep             middle school teachers from those needed by an elementary
conceptual knowledge of the mathematics that they will teach,         teacher. Whether teaching a single subject in a departmentalized
moving well beyond mere procedural understanding. Their train-        setting or teaching multiple subjects in a self-contained setting,
ing should focus on the critical areas of numbers and operations;     middle school teachers must be able to teach significantly more
algebra; geometry and measurement; and, to a lesser degree,           advanced content than elementary teachers do. The notion that
data analysis and probability.                                        someone should be identically prepared to teach first grade or
                                                                      eighth grade mathematics seems ridiculous, but states that li-
To ensure that elementary teachers are well trained to teach the
                                                                      cense teachers on a K-8 generalist certificate essentially endorse
essential subject of mathematics, states must require teacher
                                                                      this idea.
preparation programs to cover these four areas in coursework
that it specially designed for prospective elementary teachers.
                                                                      approved programs should prepare middle school
Leading mathematicians and math educators have found that
                                                                      teacher candidates to be qualified to teach two sub-
elementary teachers are not well served by courses designed
                                                                      ject areas.
for a general audience and that methods courses also do not
provide sufficient preparation. According to Dr. Roger Howe, a        Since No Child Left Behind requires most aspiring middle school
mathematician at Yale University: “Future teachers do not need        teachers to have a major or pass a test in each teaching field, the
so much to learn more mathematics, as to reshape what they            law would appear to preclude them from teaching more than
already know.”                                                        one subject. However, middle school teacher candidates could


                                                                                                nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 137
                                                                                                                                Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         instead earn two subject-area minors, gaining sufficient knowl-       Under IDEA, states can award “highly qualified teacher” status to
         edge to pass state licensing tests and be highly qualified in both    new secondary special education teachers who:
         subjects. This policy would increase schools’ staffing flexibility,
         especially since teachers seem to show little interest in taking         n■   have a major or have passed a subject-matter test in
         tests to earn highly qualified teaching status in a second subject            one of three content areas: language arts, mathematics,
         once they are in the classroom. Research offers little evidence               or science (without explanation, the law excludes social
         that middle school teachers with a major will be more effec-                  studies); and
         tive than middle school teachers with a minor, and in fact most          n■   complete a single HOUSSE route for multiple subjects in
         middle schools do not require this credential of teachers.                    all other subjects that they are likely to teach during their
                                                                                       first two years of teaching.
                                                                               States need to provide more-specific guidance on this issue. They
         area 1: goal f
                                                                               should require secondary special education teachers to have
         Special Education Teacher Preparation                                 broad coursework in multiple subjects and to become highly
         rationale                                                             qualified in two core academic areas. This will make teachers
                                                                               more flexible and thus better able to serve schools and students.
         all teachers, including special education teach-
                                                                               States can use a combination of testing and coursework to meet
         ers, teach content and therefore need relevant
                                                                               this goal.
         coursework.
         Special education teacher candidates who will teach elemen-           Secondary special education teachers need to gradu-
         tary grades should complete roughly the same core of liberal          ate highly qualified in two subject areas.
         arts coursework as regular elementary teacher candidates (See
                                                                               Given that these teachers will be expected to complete a
         Goal 1-B). They will need the same knowledge in the classroom.
                                                                               HOUSSE route in all remaining subject areas during their first
         Moreover, from a practical perspective, it is incumbent on teach-
                                                                               two years of teaching, it makes sense for them to complete
         er preparation programs to produce special education teachers
                                                                               undergraduate training in two related areas, probably either
         who are highly qualified in the areas they will teach.
                                                                               math and science or English and social studies. That way, the
         While special educators should be valued for their critical role      HOUSSE route can focus on related subject areas and candidates
         in working with students with disabilities and special needs, the     can focus on related fields, rather than studying up on English,
         state identifies them not as “special education assistants” but       history, and mathematics, for example, in their first two years of
         as “special education teachers,” presumably because it expects        teaching.
         them to provide instruction. Inclusion models, where special
         education students receive instruction from a general education       a customized HOuSSe route is needed to meet the
         teacher paired with a special education teacher to provide in-        needs of new special education teachers to earn high-
         structional support, do not mitigate the need for special educa-      ly qualified status.
         tion teachers to know content. Providing instruction to children
         who have special needs requires both knowledge of effective           Special education teachers face unique pressures, as they must
         learning strategies and of the subject matter at hand. Failure to     be competent in both the subject areas they teach and in the
         ensure that teachers are well trained in content areas deprives       strategies for teaching children with a variety of special needs.
         special education students of the opportunity to reach their aca-     The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
         demic potential.                                                      Education Act recognized these pressures in its proviso allow-
                                                                               ing new secondary special education teachers to use states’
         HQT requirements place unique challenges on second-                   HOUSSE routes to become “highly qualified,” a route normally
         ary special education teachers.                                       reserved for veteran teachers.
                                                                               Whether or not states have discontinued the HOUSSE route
         No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the 2004 reauthorization of
                                                                               for veteran teachers, it is this traditional route that most states
         the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) present
                                                                               make available for secondary special education teachers. How-
         conflicting expectations for the subject-matter preparation of
                                                                               ever, several problems are common among traditional HOUSSE
         new secondary special education teachers. Although the latter,
                                                                               routes that make them inappropriate for new secondary special
         which was passed after NCLB, offers greater flexibility and is
                                                                               education teachers. First, most state plans are weak on teacher
         more realistic than what NCLB suggests, it may not adequately
                                                                               content preparation even though the intent of the law was for
         address teachers’ subject-matter knowledge. States can provide
                                                                               HOUSSE to address weak subject-matter knowledge. Second, for
         some middle ground, while meeting the requirements of both
                                                                               teachers to achieve highly qualified status, states highly value
         laws.
                                                                               experience, which, of course, a new teacher does not have. Third,
                                                                               state requirements tend to be inordinately complicated, making


138 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                                                                     aPPeNdiX



it hard on a new teacher to know how to navigate the system to          area 1: goal h
earn the required credential.
                                                                        Teacher Preparation Program
Providing a HOUSSE option to special education teachers was
originally seen as a way to streamline the process of achieving         Accountability
HQT status for teachers who instruct in multiple subject areas          rationale
each day. While it is certainly important that a secondary special
                                                                        States need to hold programs accountable for the
education teacher has a basic competency in subjects ranging
                                                                        quality of their graduates.
from mathematics to world history, it is unreasonable to expect
him or her to hold multiple college degrees or pass four or five        The state should examine a number of factors when measur-
different content examinations to be deemed highly qualified.           ing the performance of and approving teacher preparation pro-
States can help new secondary special education teachers be-            grams. The quality of both the subject-matter preparation and
come highly qualified in multiple subjects by encouraging them          professional sequence is crucial. However, in addition to consid-
to pursue professional development and coursework that focus-           eration of program content, NCTQ recommends measures that
es on state student learning standards. Having available adapted        can provide the state and the public with meaningful, readily
subject-matter tests would also add much-needed flexibility.            understandable indicators of how well programs are doing in
                                                                        what is most important: preparing teachers to be successful in
Structured properly, HOUSSE would offer an efficient means by
                                                                        the classroom.
which a teacher could gain a broad overview of a specific area
of content knowledge. One clear option would be for a state to          Average scores on basic skills tests of individuals admitted to
identify focused, content-driven university courses that would          programs can help the state know, “Are programs appropriate-
give teachers a survey of the information necessary to teach a          ly screening applicants?” Pass rate data on licensing tests can
given subject. A single world history course could provide a suffi-     help inform states, “Are programs delivering essential academic
cient basis in social studies; a single quantitative reasoning course   and professional knowledge?” Classroom performance data and
could give a broad review of mathematical concepts. While not           evaluation ratings can help the state determine, “Are programs
providing expertise, such classes could provide the proficiency         producing effective classroom teachers?”
needed for a teacher to obtain highly qualified teacher status in       Collecting effective pass rate data on state licensing tests is es-
the subject.                                                            pecially important. At a minimum, the state should ensure that
                                                                        programs are reporting pass rates for individuals entering stu-
                                                                        dent teaching, not program completers, because the former is
area 1: goal g                                                          now required under the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Edu-
Assessing Professional Knowledge                                        cation Act. It is also a method that will not mask the number of
                                                                        individuals the program was unable to properly prepare.
rationale
a good pedagogy test puts teeth in states’ profession-
al standards.                                                           area 1: goal i
In order to ensure that the state is licensing only teachers who        State Authority for Program Approval
meet its expectations, all standards must be testable. The state’s      rationale
specifying standards that cannot be assessed in a practical and
                                                                        States should not cede oversight authority over their
cost-effective manner has no value. Examples of knowledge that
                                                                        teacher preparation programs to accreditors.
can be tested include the basic elements of good instruction,
how to communicate effectively with children, how to use class          The recent growth in the popularity of national accreditation has
time efficiently, effective questioning techniques, establishing        led some states to adopt policies that blur the line between the
smooth classroom routines, the importance of feedback, en-              public process of state program approval and the private process
gaging parents, the best methods for teaching reading as well           of national accreditation. The factors considered for accreditation
as other subjects, appropriate use of technology, knowledge of          are broader and more formative in nature than the factors that
testing, and the fundamentals of addressing individual learning         should be considered by the state when approving programs. The
challenges.                                                             state’s primary interest is--or should be--narrower, more sharply
States use too many tests to measure new teachers’ professional         focused on only those aspects of teacher preparation that direct-
knowledge that utterly fail to do so, either because the passing        ly relate to teacher effectiveness and those measures that can be
score is set so low that anyone--even those who have not had            quantified (see Goals 1-H). While both the state and the accred-
professional preparation--can pass or because one can discern           iting body share the same ultimate goal--quality teachers--the
the “right” answer on an item simply by the way it is written.          questions that each asks differ.




                                                                                                 nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 139
                                                                                                                                 Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         Furthermore, although there may be a growing consensus as            area 2: goal a
         to what teachers should know and be able to do--a consensus
         that could eventually strengthen the accreditation movement-         Alternate Route Eligibility
         -no solid evidence exists that shows that nationally accredited      rationale
         teacher preparation programs produce better teachers than un-        alternate route teachers need the advantage of a
         accredited programs.                                                 strong academic background.
         States may choose to endorse the standards of national ac-
                                                                              The intent of alternate route programs is to provide a route for
         crediting bodies, but these bodies’ standards should not be seen
                                                                              those who already have strong subject-matter knowledge to en-
         as adequate substitutes for state program approval standards.
                                                                              ter the profession, allowing them to focus on gaining the profes-
         Unfortunately, some states have allowed programs to substitute
                                                                              sional skills needed for the classroom. This intent is based on the
         national accreditation for state program approval. A few states
                                                                              fact that academic caliber has been shown to be a strong predic-
         have gone further and required that all teacher preparation pro-
                                                                              tor of classroom success. Programs that admit candidates with a
         grams at public universities attain NCATE accreditation. A few
                                                                              weak grasp of both subject matter and professional knowledge
         more have required that all in-state programs, public and private,
                                                                              can put the new teacher in an impossible position, where he or
         attain national accreditation. These policies are inappropriate,
                                                                              she is much more likely to experience failure and perpetuate high
         since they require that public funds and institutional resources
                                                                              attrition rates.
         be spent meeting the standards of a private organization that
         has yet to be recognized as the undisputed guarantor of mini-
                                                                              academic requirements for admission to alternate
         mum quality in its field.
                                                                              routes should exceed the requirements for traditional
                                                                              programs.
         area 1: goal j                                                       Assessing a teacher candidate’s college GPA and/or aptitude
                                                                              scores can provide useful and reliable measures of academic cali-
         Balancing Professional Coursework
                                                                              ber, provided that the state does not set the floor too low. A 2.5
         rationale                                                            minimum GPA is the common choice of many alternate route
         most states have programs that demand excessive                      programs but may be too low. It is about the same as what most
         requirements.                                                        teacher preparation programs require of traditional candidates.
                                                                              Some programs address this problem by looking for at least a
         NCTQ’s research shows that most states have teacher prepara-
                                                                              2.75 in the last 60 hours of college, as indicative of a candidate’s
         tion programs where teacher candidates are required to com-
                                                                              growing seriousness of purpose. GPA measures are especially
         plete more than 60 credit hours of professional coursework.
                                                                              useful for assessing elementary teacher qualifications, since el-
         These are excessive requirements that leave little room for elec-
                                                                              ementary teaching demands a broader body of knowledge that
         tives and often leave insufficient room for adequate subject-
                                                                              can be harder to define in terms of specific tests or coursework.
         matter preparation. Though there is no research data to confirm
         this, it seems likely that such excessive requirements would dis-
                                                                              multiple ways for assessing subject-matter compe-
         courage talented individuals from pursuing teacher preparation
                                                                              tency are needed to accommodate nontraditional
         and public school teaching.
                                                                              candidates.
         States need to monitor programs’ total professional                  Rigid coursework requirements can dissuade talented, qualified
         coursework requirements.                                             individuals who lack precisely the “right” courses from pursuing
                                                                              a career in teaching. States can maintain high standards by using
         Although some states specify a reasonable amount of mini-
                                                                              appropriate tests to allow individuals to prove their subject-mat-
         mum professional coursework that new teachers must complete,
                                                                              ter knowledge. For instance, an engineer who wishes to teach
         teacher preparation programs often require far more. Requiring
                                                                              physics should face no coursework obstacles as long as he or she
         teachers to complete a minimum amount of coursework does
                                                                              can prove sufficient knowledge of physics on a test. A good test
         nothing to ensure that approved programs will limit themselves
                                                                              with a sufficiently high passing score is certainly as reliable as
         to those minimums. It is also not necessarily the case that pro-
                                                                              courses listed on a transcript, if not more so.
         grams should be limited to those minimums.




140 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                                                                  aPPeNdiX



area 2: goal B                                                      Some states claim the limitations they place on the use of their
                                                                    alternate routes impose quality control. However, states control
Alternate Route Preparation                                         who is admitted and who is licensed. With appropriate standards
rationale                                                           for admission (see Goal 2-A) and program accountability (see
The program must provide practical, meaningful                      Goal 2-D), quality can be safeguarded without casting alternate
preparation that is sensitive to a new teacher’s stress             routes as routes of last resort or branding alternate route teach-
level.                                                              ers “second-class citizens.”

Too many states have policies requiring alternate route programs
to “back-load” large amounts of traditional education course-       area 2: goal d
work, thereby preventing the emergence of real alternatives to      Alternate Route Program Accountability
traditional preparation. This issue is especially important given
the large proportion of alternate route teachers who complete       rationale
this coursework while teaching. Alternate route teachers often      alternate route programs should show they consis-
have to deal with the stresses of beginning to teach while also     tently produce effective teachers.
completing required coursework in the evenings and on week-         All data that are collected on alternate route programs should
ends. States need to be careful to require participants only to     focus on the central question of whether they produce effective
meet standards or complete coursework that is practical and im-     teachers. Although many components are involved in a good al-
mediately helpful to a new teacher.                                 ternate route program, the output of productive teachers is the
                                                                    only true indicator of success. The indicators NCTQ recommends
induction support is especially important for alter-                capture a comprehensive vision of teacher effectiveness.
nate route teachers.
                                                                    Alternate route programs need to be held as accountable for
                                                                    their results as traditional programs are. While the training and
Most new teachers--regardless of their preparation--find
                                                                    time associated with alternate route programs differ substan-
themselves overwhelmed upon taking responsibility for their
                                                                    tially from those of traditional programs, the outputs of student
own classrooms. This is especially true for alternate route         learning and teacher effectiveness should be held to an identical
teachers, who may have had considerably less classroom ex-          standard.
posure or pedagogy training than traditionally prepared teach-
ers. While alternate route programs will ideally have provided
at least a brief student teaching experience, not all programs      area 2: goal e
can incorporate it into their models. States must ensure that       Licensure Reciprocity
alternate route programs do not leave new teachers to “sink
                                                                    rationale
or swim” on their own when they begin teaching.
                                                                    using transcripts to judge teacher competency pro-
                                                                    vides little value.
area 2: goal c                                                      In an attempt to ensure that teachers have the appropriate pro-
Alternate Route Usage and Providers                                 fessional and subject-matter knowledge base when granting cer-
                                                                    tification, states often review a teacher’s college transcript, no
rationale                                                           matter how many years earlier a bachelor’s degree was earned. A
alternate routes should be structured to do more than               state certification specialist reviews the college transcript, look-
just address shortages; they should provide an alter-               ing for course titles that appear to match state requirements.
native pipeline for talented individuals to enter the               If the right matches are not found, a teacher may be required
profession.                                                         to complete additional coursework before receiving standard
                                                                    licensure. This practice holds true even for experienced teach-
Many states have structured their alternate routes as a stream-
                                                                    ers who are trying to transfer from another state, regardless of
lined means to certify teachers in shortage subjects, grades or
                                                                    experience or success level. The application of these often-
geographic areas. While alternate routes are an important mech-
                                                                    complex state rules results in unnecessary obstacles to hiring
anism for addressing shortages, they also serve the wider-reach-
                                                                    talented and experienced teachers. Little evidence indicates
ing and more consequential purpose of providing an alternative
                                                                    that reviewing a person’s undergraduate coursework improves
pathway for talented individuals to enter the profession. A true
                                                                    the quality of the teaching force or ensures that teachers have
alternate route creates a new pipeline of potential teachers by
                                                                    adequate knowledge.
certifying those with valuable knowledge and skills who did not
prepare to teach as undergraduates and are disinclined to fulfill
the requirements of a new degree.


                                                                                              nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 141
                                                                                                                              Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         Testing requirements should be upheld, not waived.                       characteristics. In the area of teacher quality, value-added mod-
         While many states impose burdensome coursework require-                  els offer a fairer and potentially more meaningful way to evalu-
         ments, they often fail to impose minimum standards on licensure          ate a teacher’s effectiveness than other methods schools use.
         tests. Instead, they offer waivers to veteran teachers transferring      For example, at one time a school might have known only that
         from other states, thereby failing to impose minimal standards           its fifth-grade teacher, Mrs. Jones, consistently had students
         of professional and subject-matter knowledge. In upholding li-           who did not score at grade level on standardized assessments
         censure standards for out-of-state teachers, the state should be         of reading. With value-added analysis, the school can learn that
         flexible in its processes but vigilant in its verification of adequate   Mrs. Jones’ students were reading on a third-grade level when
         knowledge. Too many states have policies and practices that re-          they entered her class, and that they were above a fourth-grade
         verse these priorities, focusing diligently on comparison of tran-       performance level at the end of the school year. While not yet
         scripts to state documents while demonstrating little oversight          reaching appropriate grade level, Mrs. Jones’ students had made
         of teachers’ knowledge. If a state can verify that a teacher has         more than a year’s progress in her class. Because of value-added
         taught successfully and has the required subject-matter and pro-         data, the school can see that she is an effective teacher.
         fessional knowledge, its only concern should be ensuring that he         The school could not have seen this effectiveness without a data
         or she is familiar with the state’s student learning standards.          system that connects student and teacher data. Furthermore,
                                                                                  multiple years of data are necessary to enable meaningful deter-
         Signing on to the NaSdTec interstate agreement                           minations of teacher effectiveness. Value-added analysis requires
         at least signals a state’s willingness to consider                       both student and teacher identifiers and the ability to match
         portability.                                                             test records over time.
         Many states have signed onto the Interstate Agreement spon-
         sored by the National Association of State Directors of Teacher          There are a number of responsible uses for value-add-
         Education and Certification (NASDTEC), an organization con-              ed analysis.
         cerned with facilitating licensure reciprocity. However, the NAS-        assessing individual Teachers: With three years of good data,
         DTEC Interstate Agreement does not guarantee full transfer of            value-added analysis can identify the strongest and weakest
         certification and endorsement. Despite having signed the agree-          teachers; however, it is not as useful at distinguishing differences
         ment, many states still require veteran teachers to complete             among teachers in the middle range of performance. This is why
         additional coursework to attain full licensure. Neverthelesss by         value-added analysis should be used only to provide part of the
         signing this agreement, states are taking a good first step toward       evidence of teacher effectiveness.
         achieving nationwide portability.
                                                                                  School Performance: Value-added analysis can accurately assess
         States licensing out-of-state teachers should not                        the learning gains and losses made in a single school with less
         differentiate between experienced teachers prepared                      risk of measurement error. The U.S. Department of Education is
         in alternate routes and those prepared in traditional                    working with states to pilot something akin to value-added anal-
         programs.                                                                ysis, known as “student growth” models, to determine schools’
         It is understandable that states are wary of accepting alternate         Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Student growth models are not
         route teachers from other states, since programs vary widely in          as effective as value-added models at controlling for factors
         quality. However, the same wide variety in quality can be found          other than the quality of the teacher. However, these models are
         in traditional programs. If a teacher comes from another state           still valuable for providing a measure of academic improvement
         with a standard license and can pass the state’s licensure tests,        for the school overall, leaving open their potential use for de-
         whether the preparation was traditional or alternative should be         termining school-wide bonuses. A good value-added model is a
         irrelevant.                                                              subset of a student growth model; it can more precisely separate
                                                                                  out nonschool effects on learning, making it possible to better
                                                                                  distinguish a specific teacher’s impact.
         area 3: goal a
                                                                                  applicability to all Teachers: Many critics of value-added mod-
         State Data Systems                                                       els dismiss them because they can only be used for teachers in
         rationale                                                                tested subjects. While some subjects do not lend themselves to
         value-added analysis connects student data to teach-                     a value-added model, more teachers may be eligible than may
         er data to measure achievement and performance.                          be immediately obvious. For example, student reading scores are
                                                                                  affected by the quality of social studies and science instruction,
         Value-added models are an important tool for measuring student
                                                                                  not just language arts instruction. Reading comprehension is di-
         achievement and school effectiveness. These models measure in-
                                                                                  rectly connected to student learning of broad subject matter,
         dividual students’ learning gains, controlling for students’ previ-
                                                                                  including history, geography and science.
         ous knowledge. They can also control for students’ background


142 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                                                                    aPPeNdiX



High School: A value-added model is theoretically most useful           a. Observation
at the high school level, where teachers are typically assigned         1. Ratings should be based on multiple observations by multiple
many more students, making annual results more reliable. Data           persons, usually the principal and senior faculty, within the same
from an elementary class size of 20 to 30 students can produce          year to produce a more accurate rating than is possible with a
relatively unstable results for a single year. A high school teacher,   single observation. Teacher observers should be trained to use a
however, will be assigned on average 120 students, which would          valid and reliable observation protocol (meaning that it has been
yield a much more stable, reliable indicator of actual teacher          tested to ensure that the results are trustworthy and useful).
performance. Use at the high school level would require states to       The observers should assign degrees of proficiency to observed
adopt reliable pre- and post-tests in core subject areas.               behaviors.
Pilots: States can directly and indirectly encourage districts to       2. The primary observation component should be the quality of
implement value-added analysis. By piloting value-added analy-          instruction, as measured by student time on task, student grasp
sis in districts or schools, the states can directly encourage devel-   or mastery of the lesson objective and efficient use of class
opment of this valuable tool for eventual statewide use. Other          time.
programs, such as state-sponsored pay-for-performance pro-              3. Other factors often considered in the course of an observation
grams that base bonuses, in part, on teachers’ ability to produce       can provide useful information, including:
student academic gains, can indirectly encourage experimenta-              n■ questioning techniques and other methods for
tion with value-added analysis.
                                                                              engaging class;
                                                                           n■ differentiation of instruction;
evaluating Teacher-Preparation Programs: Another innovative
use for value-added analysis is its inclusion in the evaluation of         n■ continual student checks for understanding throughout

teacher preparation programs. Value-added analysis that mea-                  lesson;
sures the effectiveness of program graduates can provide valu-             n■ appropriate lesson structure and pacing;

able information that can be used to hold poor teacher prepara-            n■ appropriate grouping structures;

tion programs accountable, as well as identify strong programs             n■ reinforcement of student effort; and
that can be models for best practices.                                     n■ classroom management and use of effective classroom

                                                                              routines.
area 3: goal B                                                          Other elements commonly found on many instruments, such as
                                                                        “makes appropriate and effective use of technology” and”ties
Evaluation of Effectiveness                                             lesson into previous and future learning experiences” may seem
rationale                                                               important but can be difficult to document reliably in an ob-
Teachers should be judged primarily by their impact                     servation. Having too many elements can distract the observer
on students.                                                            from the central question: “Are students learning?”

While many factors should be considered in formally evaluating          B. Objective measures of Student learning
a teacher, nothing is more important than effectiveness in the          Apart from the observation, the evaluation instrument
classroom. Unfortunately, districts use many evaluation instru-
                                                                        should provide evidence of work performance. Many districts
ments, some mandated by states, that are structured so that
                                                                        use portfolios, which create a lot of work for the teacher and
teachers can earn a satisfactory rating without any evidence that
they are sufficiently advancing student learning in the classroom.
                                                                        may be unreliable indicators of effectiveness. Good and less-
It is often enough that teachers just appear to be trying, not          cumbersome alternatives to the standard portfolio exist, for
necessarily succeeding.                                                 example:
                                                                           n■ The value that a teacher adds, as measured by stan-
Many evaluation instruments give as much weight, or more, to                  dardized test scores;
factors that lack any direct correlation with student performance,         n■ Periodic standardized diagnostic assessments;
for example, taking professional development courses, assuming             n■ Benchmark assessments that show student growth;
extra duties such as sponsoring a club or mentoring, and getting           n■ Artifacts of student work connected to specific student
along well with colleagues. Some instruments hesitate to hold                 learning standards that are randomly selected for
teachers accountable for student progress. Teacher evaluation                 review by the principal or senior faculty and scored
instruments should include factors that combine both human                    using rubrics and descriptors;
judgment and objective measures of student learning.                       n■ Examples of typical assignments, assessed for their

A teacher evaluation instrument that focuses on student learn-                quality and rigor; and
ing could include the following components:                                n■ Periodic checks on progress with the curriculum (e.g.,

                                                                              progress on textbook) coupled with evidence of student
                                                                              mastery of the curriculum from quizzes, tests, and exams.

                                                                                                 nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 143
                                                                                                                                 Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         area 3: goal c                                                         area 3: goal d
         Frequency of Evaluations                                               Tenure
         rationale                                                              rationale
         annual evaluations are standard practice in most                       Tenure should be a significant and consequential mile-
         professional jobs.                                                     stone in a teacher’s career.
         Most states do not mandate annual evaluations of teachers who          The decision to give teachers tenure (or permanent status) is
         have reached permanent or tenured status. The lack of regular          usually made automatically, with little thought, deliberation or
         evaluations is unique to the teaching profession and does little       consideration of actual evidence. State policy should reflect the
         to advance the notion that teachers are professionals.                 fact that initial certification is temporary and probationary, and
         Further, teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere for-        that tenure is intended to be a significant reward for teachers
         malities, rather than as important tools for rewarding good            who have consistently shown effectiveness and commitment.
         teachers, helping average teachers improve, and holding weak           Tenure and advanced certification are not rights implied by the
         teachers accountable for poor performance. State policy should         conferring of an initial teaching certificate. No other profession,
         reflect the importance of evaluations so that teachers and prin-       including higher education, offers practitioners tenure after only
         cipals alike take their consequences seriously (see Goal 5-B).         a few years of working in the field.
                                                                                To make tenure meaningful, states should require a clear process,
         evaluations      are    especially      important      for    new      such as a hearing, for districts to use when considering whether a
         teachers.                                                              teacher advances from probationary to permanent status. Such
         Individuals new to a profession frequently have reduced respon-        process would ensure that the local district reviews the teacher’s
         sibilities coupled with increased oversight. As competencies are       performance before making a determination. This also protects
         demonstrated, new responsibilities are added and supervision           the teacher’s rights, as he or she knows of the process and has an
         decreases. Such is seldom the case for new teachers, who gener-        opportunity to participate.
         ally have the same classroom responsibilities as veteran teach-        States should also ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the
         ers, including responsibility for the academic progress of their       preponderant (but not the only) criterion for making tenure de-
         students, but may receive limited feedback on their performance.       cisions. Most states confer tenure at a point that is too early
         In the absence of good metrics for determining who will be an          for the collection of sufficient and adequate data that reflect
         effective teacher before he or she begins to teach, it is critical     teacher performance. Ideally, states would accumulate such data
         that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of          for five years. This robust data set would prevent effective teach-
         new teachers.                                                          ers from being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data
         States should require that districts formally evaluate new teach-      and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure.
         ers at least twice annually. A formal evaluation results in a rating
         that becomes part of the teacher’s record. Evaluations should
                                                                                area 3: goal e
         not be treated as formalities; they are an important tool for
         identifying teachers’ strengths and areas that need improve-           Licensure Advancement
         ment. Although the goal should always be to provide feedback           rationale
         and support that will help teachers address weaknesses, evalua-
                                                                                The reason for probationary licensure should be to
         tions also serve an important purpose in holding weak teachers
                                                                                determine teacher effectiveness.
         accountable for continued poor performance.
                                                                                Most states grant new teachers a probationary license that must
         The state should specifically require that districts evaluate new
                                                                                later be converted to an advanced or professional license. A pro-
         teachers early in the school year. This policy would help ensure
                                                                                bationary period is sound policy as it provides an opportunity
         that new teachers get the support they need early and that
                                                                                to determine whether individuals merit professional licensure.
         supervisors know from the beginning of the school year which
                                                                                However, very few states require any determination of teacher
         new teachers (and which students) may be at risk. Requiring at
                                                                                performance or effectiveness in deciding whether a teacher will
         least one additional evaluation provides important data about
                                                                                advance from the probationary license. Instead, states generally
         the teacher’s ability to improve. Data from evaluations from the
                                                                                require probationary teachers to fulfill a set of requirements to
         teacher’s early years of teaching can then be used as part of the
                                                                                receive advanced certification. Thus, ending the probationary pe-
         performance-based evidence to make a decision about tenure.
                                                                                riod is based on whether a checklist has been completed, rather
                                                                                than on teacher performance and effectiveness.




144 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                                                                    aPPeNdiX



most state requirements for achieving permanent                       gency credentials; average selectivity of teachers’ undergraduate
certification have not been shown to impact teacher                   colleges; and the percentage of new teachers. These factors are
effectiveness.                                                        complicated, so the state should install a system that translates
Unfortunately, not only do most states fail to connect advanced       them into something more easily understood, such as a color-
certification to actual evidence of teacher effectiveness, but        coded matrix indicating a high or low score for a school.
the requirements teachers must most often meet are not even
                                                                      States need to report data at the level of the individ-
related to teacher effectiveness. The most common requirement
                                                                      ual school.
for permanent licensure is completion of additional coursework,
often resulting in a master’s degree. Requiring teachers to obtain    Only by achieving greater stability in the staffing of individual
additional training in their teaching area would be meaning-          schools can districts achieve the nation’s goal of more equi-
ful; however, the requirements are usually vague, allowing the        table distribution of teacher quality. A strong reporting system
teacher to fulfill coursework requirements from long menus that       reflecting the index described above, as well as data on teacher
include areas having no connection or use to the teacher in the       attrition, teacher absenteeism and teacher credentials can lend
classroom. The research evidence on requiring a master’s degree       much-needed transparency to those factors that contribute to
is quite conclusive: these degrees have not been shown to make        staffing instability and inequity.
teachers more effective. This is likely due in no small part to the   The lack of such data feeds a misconception that all high-pover-
fact that teachers generally do not attain master’s degrees in        ty schools are similarly unable to retain staff because of their so-
their subject areas. According to the National Center for Educa-      cioeconomic and racial status. If collected and disaggregated to
tional Statistics, fewer than one-fourth of secondary teachers’       the level of the individual school, however, such data could shift
master’s degrees are in their subject area, and only 7 percent        the focus of districts and states toward the quality of leadership
of elementary teachers’ master’s degrees are in an academic           at the school level and away from the notion that instability
subject.                                                              and inequity are unavoidable consequences of poverty and race.
In addition to their dubious value, these requirements may also       Variations in staff stability are huge among schools with similar
serve as a disincentive to teacher retention. Talented probation-     numbers of poor and/or minority children. School culture, largely
ary teachers may be unwilling to invest time and resources in         determined by school leadership, contributes greatly to teach-
more education coursework. Further, they may well pursue              er morale, which in turn affects teacher success and student
advanced degrees that facilitate leaving teaching.                    achievement. By revealing these variations among schools facing
                                                                      the same challenges, school leadership can be held accountable-
                                                                      -and rewarded when successful.
area 3: goal f                                                        Within-district comparisons are crucial in order to control for as
Equitable Distribution                                                many elements specific to a district as possible, such as a collec-
rationale                                                             tive bargaining agreement (or the district’s personnel policies)
                                                                      and the amount of resources.
distribution data should show more than just teach-
ers’ years of experience and highly qualified status.
The first step in addressing the distribution of teachers is bring-   area 4: goal a
ing transparency to the issue. States generally report little more    Induction
than what is required by No Child Left Behind, which highlights
years of experience and HQT status. However, while teaching ex-       rationale
perience matters, the benefits of experience are largely accumu-      Too many new teachers are left to “sink or swim” when
lated within the first few years of teaching. School districts that   they begin teaching.
try to equalize experience among all schools are overestimating       Most new teachers are overwhelmed and undersupported at the
its impact. There is no reason why a school with many teach-          outset of their teaching careers. Although differences in prepara-
ers with only three or five years’ experience cannot outperform       tion programs and routes to the classroom do affect readiness,
a school with teachers who have an average of more than ten           even teachers from the most rigorous programs need support
years’ experience.                                                    once they take on the myriad responsibilities of a teacher of re-
For this reason, states need to report data that are more infor-      cord. A survival-of-the-fittest mentality prevails in many schools;
mative about a school’s teachers. States can accomplish this by       figuring out how to successfully negotiate unfamiliar curricula,
using an index for quantifying important teacher credentials          discipline and management issues, and labyrinthine school and
found to correlate with student achievement. A good example of        district procedures is considered a rite of passage. However, new
a strong index is the academic capital index developed by the Illi-   teacher frustrations are not limited to low performers. Many tal-
nois Education Research Council, incorporating teachers’ average      ented new teachers become disillusioned early by the lack of
SAT or ACT scores; the percentage of teachers failing basic skills    support they receive, and it may be the most talented who will
licensure test at least once; the percentage of teachers on emer-     more likely explore other career options.

                                                                                                nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 145
                                                                                                                                Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         vague requirements simply to provide mentoring are                       that is primarily based on experience and degree status, even
         insufficient.                                                            when they would like to have other options.
         Although many states recognize the need to provide mentoring             It should also be noted that the minimums set by many states--
         to new teachers, state policies merely indicating that mentoring         whether a minimum starting salary or a complete schedule--are
         should occur will not ensure that districts provide new teachers         woefully out-of-date, not having been updated for 20 years or
         with quality mentoring experiences. While allowing flexibility for       more in some cases. The starting salary in Louisiana, for example,
         districts to develop and implement programs in line with local           has been just over $12,000 since 1987; the Massachusetts mini-
         priorities and resources, states also should articulate the mini-        mum of $18,000 dates to 1988. Rather than maintain policies
         mum requirements for these programs in terms of the frequency            lacking meaningful guidance to districts or assurance to teach-
         and duration of mentoring and the qualifications of those serv-          ers, states should remove these regulations and send a clear
         ing as mentors.                                                          message to districts that they can decide how to compensate
                                                                                  their teachers.
         New teachers in high-needs schools particularly need
         quality mentoring.
                                                                                  area 4: goal c
         Retaining effective teachers in high-needs schools is especially
         challenging. States should ensure that districts place special
                                                                                  Retention Pay
         emphasis on mentoring programs in these schools, particularly            rationale
         when limited resources may prevent the district from providing           connecting additional compensation to the awarding
         mentoring to all new teachers.                                           of tenure would add to its significance and improve
                                                                                  teacher retention.
         area 4: goal B                                                           Starting salaries for teachers have risen significantly in many
         Pay Scales                                                               states over the last decade. While this may help attract prom-
                                                                                  ising candidates, the small pay increases that generally follow,
         rationale                                                                particularly in the first few years of teaching, may deter reten-
         compensation reform can be accomplished within the                       tion. Most state and district salary schedules provide only small
         context of local control.                                                percentage increases in the early years, with the percentage in-
         Teacher pay is, and should be, largely a local issue. Districts should   creases widening later. Longevity bonuses are also common. A
         not face state-imposed regulatory obstacles that prevent them            better strategy would be to connect a significant pay increase to
         from paying their teachers as they see fit; different communi-           the awarding of tenure, but only if tenure is based on a determi-
         ties have different resources, needs and priorities. States should       nation of effectiveness.
         remove any barriers to districts’ autonomy in deciding the terms         A tenure-connected pay increase, whether a significant salary
         for teacher compensation packages.                                       increase or a single lump-sum payment, would serve two im-
         The state can ensure that all teachers are treated fairly by de-         portant and complementary purposes. First, connecting this pay-
         termining a minimum starting salary for all teachers. However,           ment to a meaningful process for awarding tenure to effective
         a state-mandated salary schedule that locks in pay increases or          teachers would enhance public understanding that tenure is not
         requires uniform pay deprives districts of the ability to be flex-       awarded automatically to just anyone. In addition, it would pro-
         ible and responsive to supply-and-demand problems that may               vide an important retention strategy, as teachers at the begin-
         occur.                                                                   ning of their careers would know that they will receive additional
                                                                                  compensation at the conclusion of their probationary periods if
         There is an important difference between a state’s                       their effectiveness is demonstrated.
         setting the minimum teacher salary and setting a sal-
         ary schedule.                                                            area 4: goal d
         What is the difference between establishing a minimum starting           Compensation for Prior Work Experience
         salary and a salary schedule? Maine, for example, set a minimum
                                                                                  rationale
         starting salary of $30,000 for its teachers in 2007-2008. No dis-
         trict may pay less. In contrast, Washington, like many states, has       districts should be allowed to pay new teachers
         established a salary schedule that lays out what the minimum             with relevant work experience more than other new
         salary must be at every level. A teacher who has been teach-             teachers.
         ing for four years and has a master’s degree may not be paid             State and district salary structures frequently fail to recognize
         less than $40,998. One who has taught for four years and does            that new teacher hires are not necessarily new to the workforce.
         not have a master’s degree may not be paid less than $34,464.            Some new teachers bring with them deep work experience that
         While most districts exceed the state minimum, setting the sal-          is directly related to the subject matter they will teach. For ex-
         ary schedule forces districts to adhere to a compensation system         ample, the hiring of a new high school chemistry teacher with

146 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                                                                      aPPeNdiX


20 years experience as a chemical engineer would most certainly         States should set guidelines for districts to ensure
be a great boon to any district. Yet most salary structures would       that plans are fair and sound.
place this individual at the same point on the schedule as a new        Performance pay plans are not easy to implement well. There
teacher straight out of college. Compensating these teachers            are numerous examples of both state and district initiatives
commensurate with their experience is an important retention            that have been undone by poor planning and administration.
(as well as recruitment) strategy, particularly when other, non-        The methodology that allows for the measurement of teach-
teaching opportunities in these fields are likely to be more finan-     ers’ contributions to student achievement is still developing, and
cially lucrative.                                                       any performance pay program must recognize its limitations (see
As discussed in Goal 4-B, specifics of teacher pay should largely       Goal 3-A for more on the appropriate uses of this methodology).
be left to local decision making. However, states should use pol-       There are also inherent issues of fairness that should be consid-
icy mechanisms to inform districts that it is not only permissible      ered when different types of data must be used to assess the
but also necessary to compensate new teachers with related              performance of different kinds of teachers.
prior work experience appropriately.                                    States can play an important role in supporting performance pay
                                                                        by setting guidelines (whether for a state-level program or for
                                                                        districts’ own initiatives) that recognize the challenges in imple-
area 4: goal e                                                          menting a program well. Because this is an area in which there
Differential Pay                                                        is still much to learn about best practice, states should consider
rationale                                                               piloting local initiatives as a way to expand the use of and knowl-
                                                                        edge base around performance pay.
States should take the lead in addressing chronic
shortages and needs.
As discussed in Goal 4-B, states should ensure that state-level         area 4: goal g
policies (such as a uniform salary schedule) do not interfere with
districts’ flexibility in compensating teachers in ways that best
                                                                        Pension Sustainability
meet their individual needs and resources. However, when it             rationale
comes to addressing chronic shortages, states should do more            many states’ pension systems are based on promises
than simply get out of the way. They should provide direct sup-         they cannot afford to keep.
port for differential pay for effective teaching in shortage subject    Teacher salaries are just one part of the compensation package
areas and high-needs schools. Attracting effective and qualified        that teachers receive. Virtually all teachers are also entitled to a
teachers to high-needs schools or filling vacancies in hard-to-         pension, which, upon vesting, provides compensation for the rest
staff subjects are problems that are frequently beyond a district’s     of their lives after retirement. In an era when retirement benefits
ability to solve. States that provide direct support for differential   have been shrinking across industries and professions, teachers’
pay in these areas are taking an important step in promoting            generous pensions remain fixed. In fact, nearly all states continue
the equitable distribution of quality teachers. Short of providing      to provide teachers with a defined-benefit pension system, an
direct support, states can also use policy levers to indicate to dis-   expensive and inflexible model that neither reflects the realities
tricts that differential pay is not only permissible but necessary.     of the modern workforce nor provides equitable benefits to all
                                                                        teachers.

area 4: goal f                                                          Under defined benefit systems, states have made an obligation
                                                                        to fund fixed benefits for teachers at retirement. However, the
Performance Pay                                                         financial health and sustainability of many states’ systems are
rationale                                                               questionable at best. Some systems carry high levels of unfund-
Performance pay is an important retention strategy.                     ed liabilities, with no strategy to pay these liabilities down in a
                                                                        reasonable period, as defined by standard accounting practices.
Performance pay provides an opportunity to reward those teach-
                                                                        Without reform, these systems are a house of cards, vulnerable
ers who consistently achieve positive results from their students.
                                                                        to collapse as funding cannot keep up with promised benefits.
The traditional salary schedule used by districts pays all teach-
                                                                        And it is taxpayers who will have to pay if it all tumbles down.
ers with the same inputs (i.e., experience and degree status) the
same amount regardless of outcomes. Not only is following a             Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in their ca-
mandated schedule inconsistent with most other professions, it          reers by overcommitting employer resources to retire-
may also deter high-achieving teachers from staying in the field,       ment benefits.
because it offers no opportunity for financial reward for success.
                                                                        The contribution of employers to their workers’ retirement ben-
                                                                        efits is a valuable benefit, important to ensuring that individu-
                                                                        als have sufficient retirement savings. Compensation resources,


                                                                                                  nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 147
                                                                                                                                  Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         however, are not unlimited, and they must fund both current sal-        own contributions plus contributions from the employer specifi-
         aries and future retirement benefits. Mandated employer contri-         cally on the individual employee’s behalf. This is fundamentally
         butions to many states’ teacher pension systems are extremely           more equitable than defined benefit plans, which are generally
         high, leaving districts with little flexibility to be more innovative   structured to require new teachers to fund the benefits of retir-
         with their compensation strategies. This is further exacerbated         ees. Moreover, defined contribution plans are inherently portable
         for states in which teachers also participate in Social Security,       and give employees flexibility and control over their retirement
         requiring the district to pay even more toward teacher retire-          savings. It must also be noted that defined benefit plans can be
         ment. While retirement savings in addition to Social Security are       portable and fair, if structured as cash balance plans or plans that
         necessary, states are mandating contributions to two inflexible         permit the withdrawal of employer contributions.
         plans, rather than permitting options for teachers or their em-
         ploying districts.                                                      area 4: goal i
         This approach to compensation disadvantages teachers early              Pension Neutrality
         in their careers, as the commitment of resources to retirement
                                                                                 rationale
         benefits almost certainly depresses salaries and prevents incen-
         tives. Lower mandatory employer contribution rates (in states           it is unfair to all teachers when pension wealth does
         where they are too high; in some states they are shamefully low)        not accumulate in a uniform way.
         would free up compensation resources to implement the kinds             In addition to the ways defined benefit pension systems disad-
         of strategies suggested elsewhere in the Yearbook. In addition,         vantage teachers described in Goal 4-H, the way pension wealth
         some states require high employee contributions; the impact             accumulates in some systems further compounds the inequity.
         this has on teachers’ paychecks may impact retention, especially        All pension systems use a multiplier to calculate the benefits an
         early in teachers’ careers.                                             individual is entitled to receive based on salary levels and years
                                                                                 of service. For example, a pension system may have a multiplier
                                                                                 of 2.0. In such case, pension benefits are determined by multi-
         area 4: goal h                                                          plying average final annual salary by years of service and then
         Pension Flexibility                                                     multiplying the product by 2.0. Thus, someone working fewer
         rationale                                                               years with a lower final salary would appropriately receive less
                                                                                 in benefits than someone with more years of service and/or a
         anachronistic features of teacher pension plans                         higher final salary. However, the multiplier in many pension sys-
         disadvantage teachers early in their careers.                           tems is not fixed; it increases as years of service increase. When
         Nearly all states continue to provide teachers with a defined           a higher multiplier is used, teachers receive even more generous
         benefit pension system, an expensive and inflexible model that          benefits.
         neither reflects the realities of the modern workforce nor pro-
                                                                                 Another way that pension benefits are awarded unfairly is through
         vides equitable benefits to all teachers. To achieve the maximum
                                                                                 the common policy of setting retirement eligibility at different
         benefits from such a plan, a teacher must begin and end his or
                                                                                 ages and years of service. In Hawaii, for example, a teacher with
         her career in the same pension system. Teachers who leave be-
                                                                                 30 years of service may retire at age 55, while teachers with few-
         fore vesting--which is as much as 10 years in some states--are
                                                                                 er years of service may not retire until age 62. This means that
         generally entitled to nothing more than their own contributions
                                                                                 a teacher who started teaching in Hawaii at age 25 would reach
         plus some interest. This approach may well serve as a retention
                                                                                 30 years of service at age 55 and receive seven additional years
         strategy for some, but on a larger scale, it fails to reflect the
                                                                                 of full retirement benefits beyond what a teacher that started
         realities of the current workforce. At present, the United States
                                                                                 at age 32 and cannot retire with full benefits until age 62 would
         is experiencing an explosion in school-age populations in some
                                                                                 receive. A fair system would set a standard retirement age for all
         states, while others decline. The nation’s workforce needs to be
                                                                                 participants, without factoring in years of service.
         able to respond to these changes. The current workforce is in-
         creasingly mobile, with most entering the workforce expecting           Pension systems affect when teachers decide to retire
         to change jobs many times. All workers, including teachers, may         as they look to maximize their pension wealth.
         move to jobs in other states with no intention of changing ca-
                                                                                 The year teachers reach retirement eligibility by age and/or years
         reers. To younger teachers in particular, a defined benefit plan
                                                                                 of service, their pension wealth peaks; pension wealth then de-
         may seem like a meaningless part of the compensation package
                                                                                 clines for each year they work beyond retirement age. Plans that
         and thus fail to attract young talent to the profession. A pension
                                                                                 allow retirement based on years of service create unnecessary
         plan that cannot move across state lines and requires a long-
                                                                                 peaks, and plans that allow a low retirement age create an incen-
         term commitment may not seem like much of a benefit at all.
                                                                                 tive to retire earlier in one’s career than may be necessary. For
         There are alternatives. Defined contribution plans are fair to all      every year teachers continue to work beyond their eligibility for
         teachers, at all points in their careers. These plans are more eq-      unreduced retirement benefits, they lose that year of pension
         uitable because each teacher’s benefits are funded by his or her        benefits, thus decreasing their overall pension wealth.

148 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
                                                                                                                                      aPPeNdiX



Although their yearly pension benefits would continue to rise as        While some flexibility may be necessary because licensing tests
they earn additional service credit, it would only be at a small        are not always administered with the needed frequency, the
percentage per year, which would not make up for the loss of            availability of provisional certificates and waivers year after year
each year of benefits.                                                  signals that even the state does not put much value on its licens-
To try to balance this incentive to retire, some states have cre-       ing standards or what they represent. States accordingly need to
ated DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) programs. DROP              ensure that all persons given full charge of children’s learning are
programs allow participants to place their monthly pension ben-         required to pass the relevant licensing tests in their first year of
efits in a private investment account while still teaching and          teaching, ideally before they enter the classroom. Licensing tests
earning a salary, thus retaining those benefits. These teachers are,    are an important minimum benchmark in the profession, and
in effect, earning their pension and salary at the same time, and       states that allow teachers to postpone passing these tests are
often at a relatively young age.                                        abandoning one of the basic responsibilities of licensure.
A DROP program is a band-aid on the problem; it does not fix
what is structurally wrong--retirement at an early age without
                                                                        area 5: goal B
reduction of benefits. For example, the hypothetical teacher
above decides to forgo retiring at age 47 in order to wait and          Unsatisfactory Evaluations
qualify for her state’s DROP program at age 55. She now has 33          rationale
years of service and has reached a pension equal to 66 percent of
                                                                        Negative evaluations            should      have     meaningful
her salary. She remains in DROP for the maximum allowable five
                                                                        consequences.
years. During that time, her five years of lost pension benefits
                                                                        Teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere formalities,
plus her five years of mandatory employee pension contribution
                                                                        rather than as important tools for rewarding good teachers, help-
have been deposited in a private investment account. Upon retir-
                                                                        ing average teachers to improve and holding weak teachers ac-
ing at age 60, she would receive the total of that private account
                                                                        countable for poor performance. State policy should reflect the
plus a lifetime pension benefit annually of 66 percent of her final
                                                                        importance of evaluations so that teachers and principals alike
salary. With the lump-sum payment of her DROP account and
                                                                        take their consequences seriously. Accordingly, states should ar-
monthly pension benefit, she will receive 100 percent of her final
                                                                        ticulate the consequences of negative evaluations. First, teachers
average salary for at least 10 years, and, depending on the state,
                                                                        that receive a negative evaluation should be placed on improve-
she may also receive Social Security benefits. This generous guar-
                                                                        ment plans. These plans should focus on performance areas that
anteed payout would be hard to find in any other profession.
                                                                        directly connect to student learning and should list noted defi-
DROP programs do create an incentive for some teachers to re-
                                                                        ciencies, define specific action steps necessary to address these
main past their eligible retirement, but at a high cost. DROP pro-
                                                                        deficiencies and describe how progress will be measured. While
grams mean that districts still must find the funds to pay pen-
                                                                        teachers that receive negative evaluations should receive sup-
sion benefits to teachers at a relatively young age when those
                                                                        port and additional training, opportunities to improve should
dollars could be more effectively spent.
                                                                        not be unlimited. States should articulate policies wherein two
                                                                        negative evaluations within five years are sufficient justification
                                                                        for dismissal.
area 5: goal a
Licensure Loopholes                                                     employment status should not determine the conse-
rationale                                                               quences of a negative evaluation.
Teachers who have not passed licensing tests may                        Differentiating consequences of a negative evaluation based on
place students at risk.                                                 whether a teacher has probationary or nonprobationary status
                                                                        puts the interests of adults before those of students. Ideally,
While states may need a regulatory basis for filling classroom
                                                                        weaknesses and deficiencies would be identified and corrected
positions with a few people who do not hold full teaching cre-
                                                                        during the probationary period: if the deficiencies were found
dentials, many of the regulations permitting this put the instruc-
                                                                        to be insurmountable, the teacher would not be awarded per-
tional needs of children at risk, often year after year. For example,
                                                                        manent status. However, in the absence of meaningful tenure
schools can make liberal use of provisional certificates or waiv-
                                                                        processes based on teacher effectiveness, limiting significant
ers provided by the state if they fill classroom positions with
                                                                        consequences to the probationary period is insufficient. Any
instructors who have completed a teacher preparation program
                                                                        teacher who receives a negative evaluation, regardless of em-
but have not passed their state licensing tests. These allowances
                                                                        ployment status, should be placed on an improvement plan, and
are permitted for up to three years in some states. The unfor-
                                                                        any teacher who receives multiple negative evaluations, regard-
tunate consequence is that students’ needs are neglected in an
                                                                        less of employment status, should be eligible for dismissal.
effort to extend personal consideration to adults who cannot
meet minimal state standards.


                                                                                                  nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 149
                                                                                                                                  Nevada
   aPPeNdiX



         area 5: goal c
         Dismissal for Poor Performance
         rationale
         States need to be explicit that teacher ineffectiveness
         is grounds for dismissal.
         Most states have laws on their books that address teacher dis-
         missal; however, these laws are much more likely to consider
         criminal and moral violations than performance. When perfor-
         mance is included, it is usually in a euphemistic term such as
         “incompetency,” “inefficiency” or “incapacity.” These terms are
         ambiguous at best and may be interpreted as concerning der-
         eliction of duty rather than ineffectiveness. Without laws that
         clearly state that teacher ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal,
         districts may feel they lack the legal basis for terminating consis-
         tently poor performers.

         due process must be efficient and expedited.
         Teachers who are dismissed for any grounds, including ineffec-
         tiveness, are entitled to due process. However, process rights
         that allow for multiple levels of appeal are not fair to teach-
         ers, districts and especially students. All parties have a right to
         have disputes settled quickly. Cases that drag on for years drain
         resources from school districts and create a disincentive for dis-
         tricts to attempt to terminate poor performers. Teachers are not
         well served by such processes either, as they are entitled to final
         resolution quickly.

         decisions about teachers should be made by those
         with educational expertise.
         Multiple levels of appeal almost invariably involve courts or arbi-
         trators who lack educational expertise. It is not in students’ best
         interest to have the evidence of teachers’ effectiveness evalu-
         ated by those who are not educators. Teachers’ opportunity to
         appeal should occur at the district level and involve only those
         with educational expertise. This can be done in a manner that is
         fair to all parties by including retired teachers or other knowl-
         edgeable individuals who are not current district employees.




150 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
      Nevada
Board of directors
Stacey Boyd, Chair                                              Clara M. Lovett
Chief Executive Officer, The Savvy Source for Parents           President Emerita, Northern Arizona University
Chester E. Finn, Jr.                                            Barbara O’Brien
President, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute                      Lieutenant Governor, State of Colorado
Ira Fishman                                                     Carol G. Peck
Managing Director, NFL Players Association                      President and Chief Executive Officer,
Marti Watson Garlett                                            Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona
Vice President, Academic Programs and                           Danielle Wilcox
Professional Licensure, Laureate Education, Inc.                Consultant
Henry L. Johnson                                                John Winn
Senior Advisor, B&D Consulting                                  Chief Program Officer,
Jason Kamras                                                    National Math and Science Initiative
Director of Human Capital Strategy for Teachers,                Kate Walsh
District of Columbia Public Schools                             President, National Council on Teacher Quality
2005 National Teacher of the Year
Donald N. Langenberg
Chancellor Emeritus, University System of Maryland




Advisory Board
• Steven J. Adamowski, Hartford Public Schools • Sir Michael Barber, McKinsey and Company • Roy E. Barnes, former Governor,
State of Georgia • Lawrence S. Braden, Saint Paul’s School, New Hampshire • Cynthia G. Brown, Center for American Progress
• Andrew Chen, EduTron • Jo Lynne DeMary, Virginia Commonwealth University • Paula S. Dominguez, Rhode Island House
of Representatives • Cheryl Ellis, Sugar Creek Charter School • Michael Feinberg, The KIPP Foundation • Eleanor S. Gaines,
Grayhawk Elementary School, Arizona • Michael Goldstein, The Match School, Massachusetts • Eric A. Hanushek,
The Hoover Institution • Joseph Hawkins, Westat • Frederick M. Hess, American Enterprise Institute • Paul T. Hill, Center
on Reinventing Public Education • E.D. Hirsch, Core Knowledge Foundation • Michael Johnston, Colorado State Senate
• Frank Keating, former Governor, State of Oklahoma • Martin J. Koldyke, Academy for Urban School Leadership
• Wendy Kopp, Teach For America • Amy Jo Leonard, Turtle Mountain Elementary School, North Dakota • Deborah M. McGriff,
NewSchools Venture Fund • Ellen Moir, New Teacher Center • Robert N. Pasternack, Maximus Inc. • Michael Podgursky,
University of Missouri-Columbia • Michelle Rhee, District of Columbia Public Schools • Stefanie Sanford, Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation • Laura Schwedes, KIPP: STAR College Prep Charter School • Daniel Willingham, University of Virginia
                  National Council on Teacher Quality
             1420 New York Avenue, NW • Washington, DC 20005
         Tel: 202-393-0020 Fax: 202-393-0095 Web: www.nctq.org

NCTQ is available to work with individual states to improve teacher policies.
                   For more information, please contact:
                                Sandi Jacobs
                               Vice President
                             sjacobs@nctq.org
                               202-393-0020

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:77
posted:11/12/2011
language:English
pages:154